Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1004 (HP)

Sanjay v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-07-23

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No.29 of 2019, dated 06.07.2019, under Sections 363, 366 and 120B IPC, registered in Police Station Solan, District Solan, 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 06.07.2019, father of the prosecutrix (complainant) made a written complaint to the police and stated that his daughter, prosecutrix (name withheld), who is 17 years old, was taken away by the petitioner. He has stated that on 05.07.2019 the prosecutrix went to market from her quarter for bringing domestic goods. The petitioner forcibly made the prosecutrix to board a vehicle and he took her. Earlier also the petitioner took the petitioner, but when he was pressurized, he dropped her back. Thereafter, the petitioner alongwith his family members came with a proposal to marry the prosecutrix, but it was declined, as the prosecutrix was too young to be married. On the basis of the complaint, so filed by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Police recovered the prosecutrix and she was entrusted in the custody of her father (complainant). The complainant refused to get the prosecutrix medically examined. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and also prepared the spot map. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Police also found the involvement of one Nittu, who is cousin brother of the petitioner and as per the police said Nittu assisted the petitioner to take away the prosecutrix. Police made the relevant recoveries. Police procured the records qua the date of birth of the prosecutrix. It has come in the investigation that the petitioner with an intent to marry the prosecutrix took her and left her at Bus Station, Chopal, and fled away. The petitioner joined the investigation on 17.07.2019, 18.07.2019 and 22.07.2019. Police made the relevant recoveries. Police procured the records qua the date of birth of the prosecutrix. It has come in the investigation that the petitioner with an intent to marry the prosecutrix took her and left her at Bus Station, Chopal, and fled away. The petitioner joined the investigation on 17.07.2019, 18.07.2019 and 22.07.2019. As per the police, earlier also the petitioner fled and in case he is enlarged on bail at this moment there is possibility that he may flee from justice. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence, so at this stage, his bail application may be dismissed, as the investigation in the case is going on and there is possibility that in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the evidence and may also flee from justice. 4. I have heard the learned Vice Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the reports of the police, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has 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, so he may be released on bail. He has further argued that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation. Conversely, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has further argued that at this stage the petitioner may not be released on bail and his application be dismissed. 6. He has further argued that at this stage the petitioner may not be released on bail and his application be dismissed. 6. At this stage, considering the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the age of the petitioner and that of the prosecutrix, the fact that the petitioner is joining the investigation and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is permanent resident of District Shimla and also considering the overall material, which has come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No.29 of 2019, dated 06.07.2019, under Sections 363, 366 and 120B IPC, registered in Police Station Solan, District Solan, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (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. 7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.