Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 650 (HP)

Pawan Kumar v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-05-30

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. 12 of 2019, dated 17.02.2019, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station, Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. 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. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 17.02.2019 the prosecutrix (name withheld) reported to the police that the petitioner, who is jija of the prosecutrix, forcibly sexually molested her. On 27.12.2018 also the petitioner sexually molested her in forest. On the basis of the complaint, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. The prosecutrix refused to get herself medically examined. On 18.02.2019 the petitioner was arrested. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Police prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Police procured the records qua date of birth of the prosecutrix. The investigation in the case is complete and the challan stands presented in the Court. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed as the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and in case he is enlarged on bail, there is apprehension that he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner 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 police report, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner 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 and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he may be enlarged on bail. 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 and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in serious offence and in case he 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 is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. So, at this stage, 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. He has further argued that the petitioner 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, so he may be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, after carefully considering the fact that petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, considering the age of the petitioner as also that of the prosecutrix, and the facts that the petitioner 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 and also considering the other material, which has come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, the present is 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. 12 of 2019, dated 17.02.2019, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station, Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of 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.