Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1201 (HP)

Pritam Singh 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 her release in case FIR No. 117 of 2018, dated 21.04.2018, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Sadar, 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 resident of Himachal Pradesh 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 21.04.2018 father of the prosecutrix made a complaint to the police and alleged that he used to reside in Jatoli, Solan, and works as labourer. He has further stated that he has four children, i.e., two sons and two daughters. On 20.04.2018 when complainant and his wife were away for work, their daughter informed that the prosecutrix (another daughter of the complainant) is missing. During the search, the complainant came to know that the petitioner has taken the prosecutrix. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Police constituted a team and on 22.04.2018 the petitioner alongwith the prosecutrix was found in his house. Initially, the prosecutrix refused to get herself medically examined, but later on she was medically examined. The petitioner was arrested and was medically examined. During the course of investigation, the petitioner made a disclosure statement to the police and got identified a room where he sexually molested the prosecutrix. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and also prepared spot map. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Scientific samples were lifted and sent to SFSL, Junga, for analysis. On 20.07.2018, challan was presented in the Court and after the receipt of SFSL report supplementary challan was also presented in the Court on 19.02.2019. As per the police, now the case is listed for prosecution evidence on 27.08.2019 and 28.08.2019. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a heinous crime. As per the police, now the case is listed for prosecution evidence on 27.08.2019 and 28.08.2019. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a heinous crime. There is possibility that in case at this stage the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. 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 permanent resident of District Sirmour and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than one year. Investigation in the case is complete and challan stands presented in the Court. 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, 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. 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 statements of the prosecutrix and his father before the Court, wherein they have deposed that the prosecutrix, at the time of occurrence, was 18 years of age, the fact that the prosecutrix while deposing in the Court was declared hostile, considering the age of the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner is permanent resident of District Sirmour and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, 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, 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 4is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 117 of 2018, dated 21.04.2018, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Sadar, Solan, District Solan, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten 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. 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.