Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 539 (HP)

Radha Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-08-31

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present bail applications have been maintained by the petitioners, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking their release in case FIR No.114 of 2020 dated 13.6.2020, under Sections 363, 366, 344, 323, 376 (3) and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Aut, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh 2. As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are permanent residents 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 them behind the bars for an unlimited period, so they be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 13.6.2020, the child victim (name withheld) alongwith her massi, made a written complaint to the police, wherein she alleged that in the year 2019 she was studying in 11th Class. As per the prosecutrix, her mother has taken divorce from her father and she has remarried in Haryana. Since childhood, the prosecutrix used to reside in the house of her maternal uncle and aunt. When she was studying in the school Sachin Thakur (co-accused) son of Sher Singh (one of the petitioners herein) used to meet her. On 12.7.2019, at about 6:00 p.m, co-accused Sachin Thakur came to Garagushani hospital and took her to his house in his vehicle, where he narrated the entire story to his parents, i.e., Sher Singh and Jamna Devi (petitioners herein). On the subsequent day, mother, father and step mother, Smt. Radha Devi, of the prosecutrix came to the house of co-accused Sachin and her mother asked the prosecutrix to come to her house. On this, father of the prosecutrix, her step mother, Sher Singh and Jamuna Devi (petitioners herein) and co-accused Sachin and Ajay Kumar refused to send her back and compelled her to stay in the house of co-accused Sachin. As per the allegations of the petitioner, co-accused Sachin, many times, committed forcible rape upon her and she is pregnant. On this, father of the prosecutrix, her step mother, Sher Singh and Jamuna Devi (petitioners herein) and co-accused Sachin and Ajay Kumar refused to send her back and compelled her to stay in the house of co-accused Sachin. As per the allegations of the petitioner, co-accused Sachin, many times, committed forcible rape upon her and she is pregnant. The prosecutrix was confined in a room by Sher Singh and Jamuna Devi (petitioners herein) and co-accused Sachin and Ajay for about one month and they did not provide her food. On 11.6.2020, petitioners have beaten her with fist and blows. She rescued herself from the clutches of the petitioners and ran away from the place and came to the room of her massi. On 13.6.2020, the prosecutrix alongwith massi came to Police Post Balichowki and got lodged a case, against the present petitioners and co-accused. Thereafter, the police machinery was set into motion and investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, the child victim got medically examined from Medical Officer, CHC Balichowki and procured the MLC and preserved blood samples. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. Police prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners were arrested. As per the police, after completion of investigation challan was presented in the learned Trial Court. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed, as the petitioners were found involved in a serious offence and there is every possibility that in case at this stage, if they are enlarged on bail, they may flee from justice and tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel/counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully. 5. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioners, namely, Sohan Lal and Radha Devi, has argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioners are permanent residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping them behind the bars for an unlimited period. On the other hand, Mr. He has further argued that the petitioners are permanent residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping them behind the bars for an unlimited period. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, namely, Sher Singh and Jamuna Devi, has argued that the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation, their custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police. He has further argued that the main king-pin in the alleged office, as per the prosecution story, is co-accused Sachin Thakur, and the present petitioners had limited role in the alleged office, so the bail applications be allowed. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners have committed a serious crime and in case, they are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners may be dismissed. 6. Heard. At this stage, considering the role of the petitioners in the alleged offence, the fact that the prosecutrix has married co-accused Sachin Thakur and they are living as husband and wife, considering the record with regard to age of the prosecutrix, the petitioners are behind the bars for last more than two months and they cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, investigation in the matter is completed, challan has also been presented before the learned Trial Court, custody of the petitioners are not at all required by the police, the fact that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, they have neither in a position to flee from justice, as they are residents of the place, this Court finds that the present is a fit case, where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be exercised in favour of the petitioners. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioners be released on bail, in case FIR No.114 of 2020, dated 13.6.2020, under Sections 363, 366, 344, 323, 376 (3) and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Aut, District Mandi, on their furnishing personal bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: i. That the petitioners will join investigation of case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. ii. That the petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. iii. That the petitioners 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 petitions are disposed of. Copy dasti.