Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1124 (HP)

Thakru Chauhan v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-08-08

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 her release in case FIR No. 66 of 2019, dated 25.04.2019, under Sections 363, 366, 354, 397 IPC and Sections 4 and 8 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 resident of the place and 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 25.04.2019 LHC Baldev Singh, Police Station, BSL Colony Sunder Nagar, came with the statement of the prosecutrix (name withheld), which was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C on 24.04.2019. As per the prosecutrix, she is student of 9th standard and on 21.04.2019, at about 09:00 a.m., she, without disclosing to her parents, went to the house of Seema (friend of the prosecutrix). Thereafter, they both went to Karsog in a Mela (fair) and after that Seema returned home and she started to the house of her mami (maternal aunt). En route a boy met him, who was riding on motorcycle, having registration No. HP-12J4275, and he asked her about the road of Narodi temple. She accompanied that boy on his motorcycle in order to guide him and he disclosed his name as Rohit (Thakru Chauhan, petitioner herein). Thereafter, they returned to Karsog, had meals in a hotel and the petitioner took her to his house and told that he intends to marry her. She stayed with him during the night and on the next day they came to Slapar, as the petitioner told her that they will marry at Slapar. At about 04:45 p.m. the petitioner had an altercation with a person, who was inebriated, and after being scared the petitioner ran in jungle leaving the prosecutrix and his motorcycle. As per the prosecutrix, the petitioner did not do any wrong act with her. Police brought her to police station, where her parents were also called. At about 04:45 p.m. the petitioner had an altercation with a person, who was inebriated, and after being scared the petitioner ran in jungle leaving the prosecutrix and his motorcycle. As per the prosecutrix, the petitioner did not do any wrong act with her. Police brought her to police station, where her parents were also called. On the basis of the statement, so made by the prosecutrix, police registered a case and investigation ensued. 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. Police effected the relevant recoveries and obtained the records qua the date of birth of the prosecutrix. Police got recovered a bed sheet from the dhara (kiosk) of the petitioner and on 21.06.2019 the petitioner was arrested and was medically examined. On 26.06.2019 the petitioner made a disclosure statement that he made the petitioner to sit on his motorcycle and he got identified the place where he stayed with the prosecutrix during the night. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court on 05.08.2019. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a heinous crime and he is very clever person. There is possibility that in case at this stage the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, as he, in order to evade his arrest, absconded and arrested from Salapar. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his application 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 reports, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that nothing has come in the police investigation that the prosecutrix was molested. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has argued that keeping in view the material, which has come on record, and also the age of the petitioner, the bail application be allowed. He has argued that nothing has come in the police investigation that the prosecutrix was molested. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has argued that keeping in view the material, which has come on record, and also the age of the petitioner, the bail application be allowed. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a heinous offence and he is very clever person, 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 Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when the investigation is complete, challan stands presented in the Court, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the statement of the prosecutrix, wherein she did not say anything about the sexual assault and simply stated that she sat on the motorcycle of the petitioner and guided him towards the temple and thereafter she accompanied him, considering the age of the petitioner, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have taken place, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the conditions of bail, if so granted, the fact that the investigation is complete and the challan stands presented in the Court, the petitioner is resident of the place, neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, considering 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. 66 of 2019, dated 25.04.2019, under Sections 363, 366, 354, 397 IPC and Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five 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.