Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1762 (HP)

Suman Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-11-21

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. 126 of 2019, dated 12.10.2019, under Sections 451, 354, 354A, 354D, 506 and 509 IPC, registered in Police Station Bhoraj, District Hamirpur, 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 sending 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 11.10.2019 statement of the prosecutrix (name withheld) was recorded by the police in CH Bhoranj. The prosecutrix stated that about six years back she was married with one Shri Ajay Kumar and out of the wedlock two daughters were born. The petitioner, about two years back, started teasing her and despite requests he did not mend his ways. She disclosed this fact to her sister-in-law. On 11.10.2019, the petitioner came to her house armed with a darat (sickle) and when she opened the door, he fled away. The prosecutrix chased him, but when she saw that the petitioner is armed with a darat, she came back. Later on, the petitioner returned and openly said that the prosecutrix telephonically asked him to come, so the prosecutrix swallowed tablet of pesticide and she was rushed to CH Bhoranj. Acting upon the statement of the prosecutrix, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. The prosecutrix was referred to Dr. RKGMC, Hamirpur, for further treatment. The statement of the prosecutrix was again recorded when she was discharged from the hospital. As per the prosecutrix, the petitioner, with bad intentions, used to follow her and he used to ask for her mobile number. The prosecutrix refused to give her number, so the petitioner started threatening her. The petitioner, on finding the prosecutrix alone in her home, used to peep inside. Despite requests the petitioner did not mend his ways. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As per the police, the petitioner is now joining and co-operating in the investigation. The prosecutrix refused to give her number, so the petitioner started threatening her. The petitioner, on finding the prosecutrix alone in her home, used to peep inside. Despite requests the petitioner did not mend his ways. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As per the police, the petitioner is now joining and co-operating in the investigation. The petitioner got recovered the darat allegedly used by him and the same has been taken into possession. Now, nothing is to be recovered from him. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner has committed a serious office. 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 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 further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, especially when he is joining and cooperating in the investigation. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed 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 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 further argued that the petitioner is joining the investigation and cooperating. The custody of the petitioner not required by the police, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. He has further argued that the petitioner is joining the investigation and cooperating. The custody of the petitioner not required by the police, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation, nothing is to be recovered from him, the fact that his custody is not at all required by the police, also considering the nature of the offence and the manner in which the same is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, the fact 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 is joining and co-operating in the investigation, the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, as he is joining the investigation, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, if so granted, considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage and also the fact that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, so 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. 126 of 2019, dated 12.10.2019, under Sections 451, 354, 354A, 354D, 506 and 509 IPC, registered in Police Station Bhoraj, District Hamirpur, 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. (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. (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.