Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1409 (HP)

Bhoop Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-09-19

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 38 of 2019, dated 19.07.2019, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, registered in Police Station Brow, District Kullu, 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 permanent resident of District Mandi, 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 19.07.2019 prosecutrix (name withheld) got her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. with the police. As per the prosecutrix, she was married with one Shri Suresh Kumar in the year 2005 and soon thereafter they started living separately. Out of the wedlock one son was born and he is 14 years old. During February, 2019, she started carding work in a handloom shop and her son used to reside with her at Brow. The petitioner, who is driver in HRTC, was acquainted to her and he came to her room and sexually molested her against her will on the pretext of marrying her. Thereafter, the petitioner made physical relations with her many times on the pretext of marriage. When she requested the petitioner to marry her, he gave evasive replies and started threatening her. The petitioner wanted to get rid of her and ultimately he offered money and told the prosecutrix not to contact him, otherwise he would kill 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 and upon the identification of the prosecutrix, police prepared the spot map. Relevant recoveries were made by the police and statements of the witnesses were also recorded. Statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed the present petition seeking bail in the event of his arrest and this Court, vide order dated 22.07.2019, granted interim bail to the petitioner. Relevant recoveries were made by the police and statements of the witnesses were also recorded. Statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed the present petition seeking bail in the event of his arrest and this Court, vide order dated 22.07.2019, granted interim bail to the petitioner. On 23.07.2019 the petitioner joined the investigation and he was medically examined. Police collected the scientific samples and report of analysis is awaited. 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 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 the petitioner is permanent resident of District Mandi and is a government servant. He 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 sending the petitioner behind the bars for, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation. He has argued custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, so 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. Learned counsel for the complainant (prosecutrix) argued that the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail, as he has committed a heinous crime and on the pretext of marriage he exploited the prosecutrix physically. He has further argued that in case the petitioner at this stage is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has further argued that in case the petitioner at this stage is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. So, keeping in view the gravity of the offence and the manner in which the petitioner committed it, the bail application may be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a government servant, resident of District Mandi and not in a position to flee from justice and tamper with the prosecution evidence. His custody is not at all required by the police, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 8. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner is a government servant, resident of District Mandi, so he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, also considering the manner in which the offence is alleged to have occurred, the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation, he is ready and willing to abide by the conditions of bail, if so granted, considering the overall facts, which have 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. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest in case FIR No. 38 of 2019, dated 19.07.2019, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, registered in Police Station Brow, District Kullu, 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 Investigating Officer. 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. 9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.