Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1006 (HP)

Rachhpal Singh v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-07-23

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
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. 160 of 2015, dated 01.12.2015, under Sections 363, 376 and 120B IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Karsog, District Mandi, 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. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 01.12.2015 sister of the prosecutrix (complainant) made a written complaint to the police and stated that on 27.11.2015 the prosecutrix (name withheld) went to market for bringing ration from the depot, but she did not return. The prosecutrix made calls from mobile numbers, i.e., 98160-47792 and 86290-36121 and informed that she is towards the side of Hamirpur. The complainant had a suspicion that these calls had been made by the prosecutrix from the cell phones of the person who took her by enticing her. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. The mobile numbers, as quoted by the complainant, were put on surveillance and the police found the owner of these numbers to be resident of Chamba. Police recovered the prosecutrix from the house of the petitioner in village Bhatiyat, District Chamba and she was brought back. Police procured the records qua the date of birth of the prosecutrix, as she was found to be few months less than 18 years, Section 4 of the POCSO Act was also added. As per the police from 27.11.2015 to 04.12.2015 the prosecutrix remained with the petitioner, so the prosecutrix was got medically examined. Police found the involvement of one Vipin Kumar, who assisted the petitioner in taking the prosecutrix. The Medical Officer, after medically examining the prosecutrix and also perusing the scientific report, did not rule out the possibility of recent sexual intercourse. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 22.08.2018 the petitioner was arrested. Police found the involvement of one Vipin Kumar, who assisted the petitioner in taking the prosecutrix. The Medical Officer, after medically examining the prosecutrix and also perusing the scientific report, did not rule out the possibility of recent sexual intercourse. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 22.08.2018 the petitioner was arrested. Police prepared the spot map and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. The challan stands presented in the Court and now the case is listed for prosecution witnesses on 30.08.2019. As per the police, the petitioner is very clever persons and he 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, so the petition be dismissed. 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 police report, carefully. 5. The learned Vice Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. 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. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the bail application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Vice Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Vice Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, after taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and that of the prosecutrix, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars since 22.08.2018, the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and also the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage and also the fact that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so 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 case FIR No. 160 of 2015, dated 01.12.2015, under Sections 363, 376 and 120B IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities 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.