Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1387 (HP)

Deepakrana v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-09-12

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. 71 of 2019, dated 26.07.2019, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC & ST Act, registered in Police Station Damtal, Nurpur, District Kangra, 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, so he may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 26.07.2019 the prosecutrix (name withheld) moved an application to the police wherein she contended that during the year 2016 she used to work in a mobile shop and came in contact with the petitioner, as he used to come in the mobile shop. The petitioner proposed her for marriage and this fact was brought to the knowledge of her parents. The petitioner used to say that he will marry her when his career is sorted out. Thereafter the prosecutrix went to Chandigarh for job and they used to talk over phone. On 05.01.2019 the petitioner called the prosecutrix to Damtal where in a hotel he sexually molested her. When she asked the petitioner to marry her, he told her that he will marry her after completing his training, but thereafter the petitioner gradually stopped talking with her and also refused for marriage. As per the allegation of the prosecutrix, the petitioner, on the pretext of marrying her, sexually molested her twice. On the basis of the application, so moved by the prosecutrix to the police, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. The prosecutrix was medically examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The prosecutrix got identified the hotel where she was sexually molested, so the police prepared the spot map of that hotel and records of that hotel was taken into possession. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Records qua the caste of the prosecutrix were also obtained. The prosecutrix was medically examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The prosecutrix got identified the hotel where she was sexually molested, so the police prepared the spot map of that hotel and records of that hotel was taken into possession. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Records qua the caste of the prosecutrix were also obtained. It has come in the investigation that the petitioner belongs to General category and the prosecutrix is from Schedule caste family, so the police added Section 3(2)(V) of the SC & ST Act. During the course of investigation, the petitioner admitted that on 05.01.2019 in a hotel he sexually molested the prosecutrix. On 31.08.2019 the petitioner produced a marriage certificate, which depicts that he married the prosecutrix in a temple on 26.08.2019 in presence of his relatives. The petitioner also produced a group photo, which was taken into possession by the police. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as he was found involved in a serious offence and in case at this stage he is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. 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 is innocent and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is resident of the place. He has further argued that petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation and is ready to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, if in the event of his arrest, he is enlarged on bail, so he may be released on bail. 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 granted bail and his application be dismissed. 6. He has further argued that at this stage the petitioner may not granted bail and his application be dismissed. 6. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner and the prosecutrix have solemnized marriage and today the prosecutrix is present in the Court, considering the age of the petitioner and that of the prosecutrix, the fact that the petitioner is serving in Indian Army, 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, the fact that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation 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. 71 of 2019, dated 26.07.2019, under Sections 376,506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC & ST Act, registered in Police Station Damtal, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten 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. 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. 71 of 2019, dated 26.07.2019, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC & ST Act, registered in Police Station Damtal, Nurpur, District Kangra, 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, so he may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 26.07.2019 the prosecutrix (name withheld) moved an application to the police wherein she contended that during the year 2016 she used to work in a mobile shop and came in contact with the petitioner, as he used to come in the mobile shop. The petitioner proposed her for marriage and this fact was brought to the knowledge of her parents. The petitioner used to say that he will marry her when his career is sorted out. Thereafter the prosecutrix went to Chandigarh for job and they used to talk over phone. On 05.01.2019 the petitioner called the prosecutrix to Damtal where in a hotel he sexually molested her. When she asked the petitioner to marry her, he told her that he will marry her after completing his training, but thereafter the petitioner gradually stopped talking with her and also refused for marriage. As per the allegation of the prosecutrix, the petitioner, on the pretext of marrying her, sexually molested her twice. On the basis of the application, so moved by the prosecutrix to the police, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. The prosecutrix was medically examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The prosecutrix got identified the hotel where she was sexually molested, so the police prepared the spot map of that hotel and records of that hotel was taken into possession. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Records qua the caste of the prosecutrix were also obtained. It has come in the investigation that the petitioner belongs to General category and the prosecutrix is from Schedule caste family, so the police added Section 3(2)(V) of the SC & ST Act. During the course of investigation, the petitioner admitted that on 05.01.2019 in a hotel he sexually molested the prosecutrix. On 31.08.2019 the petitioner produced a marriage certificate, which depicts that he married the prosecutrix in a temple on 26.08.2019 in presence of his relatives. The petitioner also produced a group photo, which was taken into possession by the police. During the course of investigation, the petitioner admitted that on 05.01.2019 in a hotel he sexually molested the prosecutrix. On 31.08.2019 the petitioner produced a marriage certificate, which depicts that he married the prosecutrix in a temple on 26.08.2019 in presence of his relatives. The petitioner also produced a group photo, which was taken into possession by the police. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as he was found involved in a serious offence and in case at this stage he is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. 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 is innocent and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is resident of the place. He has further argued that petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation and is ready to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, if in the event of his arrest, he is enlarged on bail, so he may be released on bail. 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 granted bail and his application be dismissed. 6. He has further argued that at this stage the petitioner may not granted bail and his application be dismissed. 6. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner and the prosecutrix have solemnized marriage and today the prosecutrix is present in the Court, considering the age of the petitioner and that of the prosecutrix, the fact that the petitioner is serving in Indian Army, 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, the fact that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation 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. 71 of 2019, dated 26.07.2019, under Sections 376,506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC & ST Act, registered in Police Station Damtal, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten 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.