Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 753 (HP)

Sheetal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-10-16

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.83 of 2020, dated 30.08.2020, under Sections 354-A, 341 of the Indian Penal Code & 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, registered in Police Station Rajgarh, District Sirmour, 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. The prosecution story, as emanates from the records, is that on 30.08.2020, prosecutrix (name withheld) made a statement to the police under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per prosecurtix, she is student of 9th Class and residing with her grandmother and sister. Her father died six years back and her mother has left them. In the month of August, when she was returning home from the school, a boy namely Sheetal (petitioner herein), who is also resident of her village, obstructed her way and asked the prosecutrix that he likes her and why she does not talk to him. Then she refused to talk to the petitioner and thereafter she told that not talk to her again and he touched her shoulder and went away. On 28.08.2020, the petitioner called the prosecutrix on the mobile number of her grandmother and asked about her well being and whereabouts of her family. After talking for some, she disconnected the phone and blacklisted the mobile number of the petitioner. Thereafter, he did not call her again. Instead of narrating the incident to her grandmother, the prosecutrix narrated everything to her aunt (Bua). Upon this, her Aunt (Bua) has made a call on Child Helpline and the prosecutrix also talk to them. Thereafter, the police proceeded with completing the codal formalities and a case was registered against the petitioner under the apt Sections. Instead of narrating the incident to her grandmother, the prosecutrix narrated everything to her aunt (Bua). Upon this, her Aunt (Bua) has made a call on Child Helpline and the prosecutrix also talk to them. Thereafter, the police proceeded with completing the codal formalities and a case was registered against the petitioner under the apt Sections. As per the police, statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the learned JMIC, Rajgarh, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as, in case the petitioner at this stage, is enlarged on bail, he may temper with the prosecution evidence and flee from justice. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, 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 argued that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation and no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and in case, at this stage, he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may 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, so the petition may be allowed and the petitioner may 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, so the petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 8. At this stage, after considering the different facets of the case in hand and after giving thoughtful and incisive consideration to the facts 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 for interrogation, the fact, that nothing has come out against the petitioner in the police investigation, considering the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted. Considering the nature of the offence and the manner in which the same is alleged to have been committed 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.83 of 2020, dated 30.08.2020, under Sections 354- A, 341 of the Indian Penal Code & 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, registered in Police Station Rajgarh, District Sirmour, 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 only) 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 made 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. iii. That the petitioner will not directly or indirectly made 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.