Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 118 (HP)

Gourav Dhiman v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2020-01-10

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking his release in case FIR No. 25 of 2019, dated 02.02.2019, under Section 498A, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Parwanoo, 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 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 sending him behind the bars, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 02.02.2019 Smt. Aakshi Devgan (complainant) made a complaint to the police and alleged that on 27.10.2017 she was married with Vikas Dhiman. Her parents gave ornaments of diamond and gold and other goods in dowry. After some days of marriage the in-laws of the complainant started beating her and her father-in-law and brother-in-law (devar) demand dowry. Due to persistent torture, the complainant became a patient of depression and she remained under treatment. The in-laws of the complainant demanded fourteen lac rupees for purchasing a house for the husband of the complainant. The complainant further averred that her husband used to tell her that they will bring her back to their home in case younger sister of the complainant is married with the petitioner and sufficient dowry is given. Whenever she used to complain, she was being threatened with dire consequences. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and relevant recoveries were effected. As per the police, the accused persons are joining and co-operating in the investigation and the petitioner, who is perusing studies abroad, jointed the investigation on 09.01.2020. Police are interrogating the petitioner. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as there is possibility that in case at this stage if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his application be dismissed. 4. Police are interrogating the petitioner. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as there is possibility that in case at this stage if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his application 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 police report, carefully. 5. The learned Senior 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 neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation, so no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, as he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that the petitioner is pursuing studies abroad and he is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted by this Hon'ble Court, so the bail application be allowed. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the police is interrogating the petitioner and as there is possibility that in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the bail application be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. His custodial interrogation is not at all required, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. His custodial interrogation is not at all required, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the manner in which the offence is alleged to have committed by the petitioner, the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the fact that the petitioner is a student, he is joining and cooperating in the investigation and is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for investigation, the custody of the petitioner will not serve any fruitful purpose, and also considering the overall facts, 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, in the event of his arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 25 of 2019, dated 02.02.2019, under Section 498A, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty 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 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.