Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 336 (HP)

Layak Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-06-11

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The matter is taken up through video conference. 2. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 131 of 2020, dated 03.06.2020, under Sections 354A and 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 3. 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 sending him behind the bars, so he be released on bail. 4. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 02.06.2020, at about 07:15 p.m., the complainant/victim (name withheld) telephonically informed the police that today while she was working in the field, Layak Ram (petitioner herein) alongwith his family members assaulted her with an intent to disrobe her. Police, acting upon the telephonic information, registered a rapat and the victim was medically examined. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and during the course of investigation it was unearthed that on 02.06.2020, at about 06:30 p.m., when the victim was working on her field, the petitioner caught hold of her and started doing indecent acts. When the victim raised hue and cry, family members of the petitioner rushed to the spot and all of them thrashed the victim. The victim was rescued by Shri Meena Ram and Shri Manohar Singh. Police recorded the statement of the victim under Section 154 Cr.P.C and a case was registered against the accused persons, including the petitioner. Police prepared the spot map and photographed the spot of occurrence. Statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It has come in the police investigation that land disputes are pending inter se the parties in the Courts. As per the police, recovery of weapon of offence has already been effected. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious crime. There is possibility that in case at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. As per the police, recovery of weapon of offence has already been effected. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious crime. 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. 5. 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. 6. The learned 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 resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, as he is joining and cooperating in the investigation, nothing is to be recovered from him and it has specifically come in the investigation that land disputes are pending in the Courts inter se the parties. He has argued that the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for investigation, so the bail application be allowed. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal the learned 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, as he is permanent resident of the place. His custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation and nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 8. His custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation and nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 8. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation, he is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is permanent resident of the place, his custody is not at all required by the police, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, considering the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation 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. 131 of 2020, dated 03.06.2020, under Sections 354A and 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, 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. 9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.