Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 475 (HP)

Davinder Singh v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-03-27

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J —The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 68 of 2017, dated 30.05.2017, under Sections 376 IPC, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 30.05.2017 the prosecutrix (name withheld) got recorded her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. before the police. As per the prosecutrix, she used to live with her massi in Jalandhar. After the death of her mausa, her massi remarried. Rajvir Singh (petitioner) was her friend and on 26.05.2017 he asked to accompany him to Chintpurni temple. While they were en route in an i-20 car her health deteriorated, so they stayed in a guest house at Gagret. The prosecutrix has further alleged that Rajvir Singh forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her in the hotel room. In the morning Rajvir Singh dropped her back at Jalandhar on the pretext that he will marry her. Thereafter, the mobile phone of the Rajvir Singh was found switched off. Upon the statement of the prosecutrix, a case was registered. The prosecutrix refused to get herself medically examined. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Police prepared the spot map and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. The guest house room was photographed. As per he ID given by the petitioner in the guest house, his name was found to be Devender Singh (petitioner herein) . The petitioner despite best efforts could not be found. The prosecutrix was entrusted in the custody of her massi. Record from the guest house was obtained. CD of CCTV footage of the guest house was obtained. The petitioner was in judicial custody in a ND&PS case, so production warrant of the petitioner was obtained and on 10.06.2017 he was medically examined. The petitioner is in judicial custody. As per the police, the challan stands presented in the Court and the case is listed for prosecution evidence on 08/09/10.05.2018. The petitioner was in judicial custody in a ND&PS case, so production warrant of the petitioner was obtained and on 10.06.2017 he was medically examined. The petitioner is in judicial custody. As per the police, the challan stands presented in the Court and the case is listed for prosecution evidence on 08/09/10.05.2018. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner have argued that the petitioner is innocent and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration seriousness of the offence, the application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the petitioner have argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage taking into consideration the news item published in the news papers, which, as per the learned Counsel for the petitioner is a changed circumstance and also the other material, which has come on record, including the FIR (Annexure P-4) and the fact that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. Therefore, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Therefore, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in connection with FIR No. 68 of 2017, dated 30.05.2017, under Sections 376 IPC, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P., he shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ''50, 000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required. (ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioner will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.