Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 757 (HP)

Manoj Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-06-21

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 53 of 2019, dated 29.05.2019, under Sections 354A IPC, registered in Police Station, Bhawarna, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, 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, so he may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 29.05.2019 police received a written complaint alongwith other documents from Principal, Senior Secondary School, Gaggal. As per the allegations, on 23.05.2019 the petitioner herein, who works as IP Teacher in the said school teased the prosecutrix (name withheld). The prosecutrix studies in 10+1 in the said school and she is only student of computer. She has further divulged that the petitioner used to touch her inappropriately with his hands and legs. On the basis of the said complaint, police registered a case and investigation ensued. Police clicked the photographs of the spot and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. Police also made relevant recoveries. The prosecutrix refused to get herself medically examined. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The petitioner joined the investigation on 01.06.2019 and since then he is joining and cooperating in the investigation. As per the police, the investigation in the case is almost complete. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and in case he is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the application may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the report of the police, carefully. 5. 4. I have heard the learned Senior 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 Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he 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 released on bail. He has further argued that the petitioner is joining and cooperating in the investigation. He has argued that if the allegations against the petitioner are scrutinized, the only allegations is that the petitioner used to touch the prosecutrix on her back when she was in the computer class, so for this the petitioner should not be sent behind the bars, especially when he is joining and cooperating in the investigation. Conversely, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has further argued that at this stage the petitioner may not be released on bail and his application be dismissed. 6. He has further argued that at this stage the petitioner may not be released on bail and his application be dismissed. 6. At this stage, considering the nature of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the relationship of the petitioner and the prosecutrix, the fact that the petitioner is joining and cooperating in the investigation, the investigation in the matter is almost complete, the fact 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 and also considering the all other aspects of the case and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that no purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, so the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 53 of 2019, dated 29.05.2019, under Sections 354A IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, registered in Police Station, Bhawarna, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/( rupees twenty five 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 join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (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. 7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.