Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 456 (HP)

Parminder Singh v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-04-24

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail applications have been moved by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 04 of 2018, dated 04.01.2018, under Sections 376-D, 313 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and they are joining and co-operating in the investigation, so they may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 04.01.2018 police received a complaint of the prosecutrix (name withheld), wherein she averred that in the month of September, 2017, the petitioners alongwith co-accused committed rape on her in a hotel. The prosecutrix further averred that she used to live separately from her husband and has a son, who is one year and seven months' old. Petitioner Parminder Singh, Sarpanch, promised her that he will adopt the son, as he is having no children. However, petitioner Parminder Singh did not introduce her to his wife. As petitioner Parminder Singh promised her to adopt her son, prosecutrix developed physical relations with him. Thereafter, petitioner Parminder Singh compelled her to live separately from her mother and he used to visit her place, but despite perennial requests he did not adopt her son. The prosecutrix further contended that in September, 2017, petitioner Parminder Singh asked her to come to Baba Barbhag Singh and he was accompanied by one Balwinder Singh and some another person, whose name she does not know. There they stayed in a hotel and she was made to drink liquor and all of them sexually molested her. When the prosecutrix told them that she would complain the matter, all of them threatened her. In November she came to know that she is pregnant and petitioner Parminder Singh told her to terminate the pregnancy and administered some pills to her. However, the pregnancy could not be completely terminated, so her surgical abortion was done on 30.11.2017. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the prosecutrix, a case was registered and the investigation ensued. However, the pregnancy could not be completely terminated, so her surgical abortion was done on 30.11.2017. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the prosecutrix, a case was registered and the investigation ensued. The prosecutrix was medically examined and as per the medical opinion possibility of sexual assault was not ruled out. Police prepared the spot map and records of hotel was also procured, which show that on 13.10.2017 rooms No. 104 and 105 were booked in the name of Balwinder Singh (co-accused). It was unearthed during the course of investigation that on that day co-accused (Balvir) mixed something in the drink of the prosecutrix and thereafter the petitioners and co-accused Balwinder Singh committed rape on her. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It has come in the investigation that petitioner Parminder Singh got abortion of the prosecutrix done in a private hospital. Accused Balwinder Singh was arrested and his medical examination was conducted. The petitioners initially, in order to evade their arrest, fled away and on 09.04.2019 and 10.04.2019 petitioners Paraminder Singh and Balwinder Singh, respectively, joined the investigation. Challan against the petitioners stands presented in the learned Trial Court. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the petitioners have committed a heinous crime and in case they are enlarged on bail, at this stage, they may tamper with the evidence and may also flee from justice, so their applications may 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 report of the police, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioners are innocent and they are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation. Conversely, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the petitioners have committed a heinous crime and in case at this stage they are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has further argued that at this stage the petitioners may not be released on bail and their applications be dismissed. 6. He has further argued that at this stage the petitioners may not be released on bail and their applications be dismissed. 6. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation, keeping in view the fact that co-accused Balwinder Singh has been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble High Court and also considering the fact that the petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and also considering all the 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 petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest, is required to be exercised in their favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioners be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 04 of 2018, dated 04.01.2018, under Sections 376-D, 313 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P., on their furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioners will join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii) That the petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioners 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 petitions are disposed of.