Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 718 (HP)

Mahi Pal v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-04-23

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J —The present bail applications have been moved by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 12 of 2015, dated 10.03.2015, under Sections 344, 366 and 368 read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may be enlarged on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the police report, on 10.03.2015, the prosecutrix (name withheld) got her statement recorded before the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C.. She has deposed that on 21.01.2015, at about 5 p.m., she received a telephonic call on her mobile and her husband asked her that who is calling you. On this, her husband had altercation with her, so she ran towards Dhartu Khari School. It was raining that day and when she was standing near the wall of the school, a boy named Anu met her, to whom she revealed that she had an altercation with her husband. The prosecutrix asked the said boy that she wants to go to her aunt''s house at Solan, but the boy told that his vehicle is breakdown. The said boy made the prosecutrix to sit in an under construction toilet and wait for him. The prosecutrix spent her whole night there and on the subsequent day he came alongwith another boy and took her in a vehicle, but instead of stopping at Solan, she was taken to Haryana. The prosecutrix was taken to the petitioners'' house and the petitioners retrained her to use her mobile phone. As per the prosecutrix, the petitioners alongwith the said Anu had an intention to sell the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was married by the petitioners with a boy and when she divulged to him that she is already married and having a kid, he left the prosecutrix with the petitioners. The boy, to whom the prosecutrix was married by the petitioners, told her that he bought her by paying Rs. 1,25, 000/- (one lac twenty five thousand) to the petitioners. The boy, to whom the prosecutrix was married by the petitioners, told her that he bought her by paying Rs. 1,25, 000/- (one lac twenty five thousand) to the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners left the prosecutrix with their relative, one Gopi Tau, where she was kept nicely like daughter. Subsequently, said Gopi Tau, apprehending threat to the life of the prosecutrix, left her with Dara Singh and Subhash Pandit in village Karak Pandava. In Karak Pandava, the prosecutrix was kept nicely and Dara Singh telephonically informed her husband. Subsequently, police brought her back to Chopal. The prosecutrix prayed that action be taken against the petitioners and one Anu. On the basis of the statement, so made by the prosecutrix, a case was registered and the investigation ensued. Statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Spot map was prepared and inquires were made from accused Anil @ Anu. The prosecutrix has identified accused Anil @ Anu and he was arrested. Statements of other witnesses were also recorded. The petitioners, despite best efforts, could not be apprehended and they evaded their arrest. As per the police, on 30.08.2016, challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court against accused Anil @ Anu and the learned Trail Court has declared the petitioners as proclaimed offenders. On 11.04.2018, the petitioners joined the investigation. According to the police, no further interrogation/investigation is to be made from the petitioners and only supplementary challan is to be presented in the learned Trial Court. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation and their custodial interrogation is not at all required. He has also argued that by keeping the petitioners behind the bars no fruitful purpose will be served. No recovery is to be effected at the instance of the petitioners. The petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that in case the petitioners are released on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. The petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that in case the petitioners are released on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. The petitioners have committed a serious offence, thus it has been prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners may be dismissed. 6. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners have joined the investigation and now the investigation is complete and only supplementary challan is to be presented against the petitioners in the learned Trial Court and also the fact that petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and also keeping in view the age of the petitioners and all other aspects of the case, which have come on record, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest, is required to be exercised in their favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioners be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 12 of 2015, dated 10.03.2015, under Sections 344, 366 and 368 read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Chopal, District Shimla, H.P., on their furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 25, 000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioners will join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii) That the petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioners 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. 7. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of.