Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 677 (HP)

Rajan v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-05-31

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. 32 of 2014, dated 15.05.2014, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Arki, District Solan, 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 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 15.05.2014 mother of the prosecutrix (name withheld) made a report to the police that on 07.05.2014 the prosecutrix went to Sewing Centre, Gambhar and thereafter she did not return. Subsequently, the mother of the prosecutrix came to know that the petitioner, who is resident of their village and used to drive a truck, took the prosecutrix with him. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and obtained the records qua date of birth of the prosecutrix. On 05.06.2014 the petitioner and the prosecutrix were found at place Vardhman, Baddi. The prosecutrix and the petitioner wee medically examined. The petitioner was arrested on 05.06.2014. The statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Police made the relevant recoveries and prepared the spot map. Statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. After completion of investigation, police presented the challan in the learned Trial Court on 30.08.2014. As per the police, statements of all the prosecution witnesses have been recorded by the learned Trial Court and now the case is listed for statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 19.06.2019. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed as the petitioner was found involved in a heinous crime and if he is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. 4. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed as the petitioner was found involved in a heinous crime and if he is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. 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. It has been further argued that that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. The petitioner is resident of the place and is not in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that as the statements of all the prosecution witnesses have been recorded, so there is no apprehension that the petitioner might tamper with the prosecution evidence, so he may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and in case he is enlarged on bail, he flee from justice. It has been argued 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. He has further argued that the petitioner is not in a position to flee from justice, so he may be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, after taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, the fact that he is behind the bars since 05.06.2014, all the prosecution witnesses stand examined, the petitioner is resident of the place and he is not in a position to flee from justice, the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period and also considering the overall material, 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 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. 32 of 2014, dated 15.05.2014, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Arki, District Solan, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of 50,000/- (rupees fifty 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. 9. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an opinion expressed on the merits of the case and the same are confined for adjudication of this petition only.