Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2029 (HP)

Nitesh Kumar @ Sunny v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-12-27

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. 380 of 2019, dated 15.12.2019, under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC&ST Act, registered in Police Station Balh, District Mandi, 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 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 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, the statement of the prosecutrix (name withheld) was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that she is acquainted with the petitioner and they used to meet after college. She has further stated that both of them wanted to marry each other and on 06.12.2019 she was called by the petitioner to meet him in Jawahar Park, Sundernagar. Both of them went to rented accommodation of the petitioner and stayed there till 09.12.2019. The petitioner on the pretext of marrying her, had sexual intercourse with her. The petitioner sought time of two days to arrange money for marriage. On 12.12.2019 the petitioner took the prosecutrix in a room in a dhaba where they stayed and there also the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her. On 14.12.2019 the petitioner met the prosecutrix and told her that he could not marry her against the wishes of his parents. The prosecutrix did not return to her home till 13.12.2019, so her parents lodged a missing complaint and on 14.12.2019 the petitioner alongwith the prosecutrix went to police station where the family members of the prosecutrix arrived. Upon the complaint, so made by the prosecutrix, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Police got the prosecutrix medically examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused was arrested and was medically examined. Police made the relevant recoveries and also lifted scientific samples. Spot map was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. As per the police, report of scientific analysis is still awaited. Police got the prosecutrix medically examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused was arrested and was medically examined. Police made the relevant recoveries and also lifted scientific samples. Spot map was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. As per the police, report of scientific analysis is still awaited. The investigation reveals that on 12.12.2019 the petitioner brought the prosecutrix to the scene of occurrence, i.e. dhaba and they left the same on 13.12.2019. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner has committed a serious crime. In case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned vice counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned vice 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 keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, as nothing is to be recovered at his instance. He has further argued that his custody is not at all required by the police for further investigation, so the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may 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 his custody is not at all required by the police. He has further argued that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted and he is resident of the place, so not in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted and he is resident of the place, so not in a position to flee from justice. He has prayed that the application be allowed and he be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the age of the petitioner, who is only 24 years of age, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, the petitioner is permanent resident of the place, so neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the fact that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted and also considering the overall material, which has come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, 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. 380 of 2019, dated 15.12.2019, under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC&ST Act, registered in Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five 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. Copy dasti.