Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1200 (HP)

Rajan Bedi v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-08-21

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. 150 of 2019, dated 03.07.2019, under Section 376 IPC, registered in Police Station Boileauganj, District Shimla, 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 03.07.2019 the prosecutrix (name withheld) made a complaint to the police, wherein she alleged that two years back she came in contact with the petitioner, through facebook, and for the last one month she was residing with the petitioner. The petitioner proposed her for marriage, but she refused and thereafter for pursuing studies she came to Chandigarh and started residing in a rented accommodation. During November, 2018, the petitioner again started talking with the prosecutrix and the petitioner again proposed her for marriage. For New Year celebration the petitioner and the prosecutrix came to Shimla and when they were returning, at about 02:00 a.m., the petitioner stopped his car by the side of the road and he forcibly sexually molested her. The prosecutrix has further stated in her complaint that at Shimla the petitioner gave her momos and cold drink and after having that she felt intoxicated. Thereafter, the petitioner started living with her as her husband and he many times sexually molested her. The prosecutrix kept mum, as she was hoping that the petitioner will marry her, but after some days the petitioner escaped and he switched off his mobile phone. The prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner sexually molested her on the pretext of marrying her. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the prosecutrix, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. The prosecutrix was medically examined. Police prepared the spot map and also clicked photographs. Police also made relevant recoveries. On 19.07.2019, the petitioner was arrested from Chandigarh and he was medically examined. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the prosecutrix, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. The prosecutrix was medically examined. Police prepared the spot map and also clicked photographs. Police also made relevant recoveries. On 19.07.2019, the petitioner was arrested from Chandigarh and he was medically examined. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix revealed that in a temple located in Ambala the petitioner filled vermillion in the maang of the prosecutrix, but both the petitioner and the prosecutrix could not identify that temple. Police lifted the scientific samples and sent the same to SFSL, Junga, for analysis. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a heinous offence. There is possibility that in case at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice and tamper with the prosecution evidence. 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 has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that keeping in view the manner in which the offence is alleged to have taken place and all the material, which has come on record, the petition be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail, as no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. 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 Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially keeping in view the manner the offence is alleged to have taken place, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. 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 keeping in view the manner the offence is alleged to have taken place, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the age of the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner and the prosecutrix are still living together, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have taken place, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, if so granted, he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, considering the overall aspects of the case and the material, which has 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. 150 of 2019, dated 03.07.2019, under Section 376 IPC, registered in Police Station Boileauganj, District Shimla, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his 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.