Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 828 (HP)

Lakhwinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-11-11

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 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release, in case FIR No. 198 of 2020, dated 24.09.2020, under Sections 376, 323 and 427 of Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station Sadar Hamirpur, 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 permanent 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 keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 4. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 24.09.2020 the prosecutrix (name withheld) made a statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to the police, wherein she stated that on 23.09.2020, around 10:30 a.m., she went to Bassi for removal of her dental braces. She has further stated that on 15.07.2019 she was engaged to Lakhwinder Singh (petitioner herein), however, the engagement broke in January, 2020. As per the prosecutrix, the petitioner accompanied her and paid Rs. 7500/- to the dentist for removal of her dental braces, thereafter he forcible took her to his house in a vehicle, where he forcible committed sexual intercourse with her. At about 4:30 p.m., the petitioner and his younger brother started towards the house of the prosecutrix to drop her in a vehicle, however, upon being directed by the petitioner, his younger brother broke her mobile phone and the petitioner slapped her. The petitioner and his younger brother dropped her midway and the prosecutrix walked towards the house of the petitioner and reached there at about 7:00 p.m. She narrated the entire episode to the parents of the petitioner and she alongwith the elder brother of the petitioner, on his motorcycle, started towards her home, however, again the petitioner, after chasing them, stopped them en route and gave beatings to her and also tried to press her neck. Thereafter, the prosecutrix started to her home on the motorcycle of the petitioner, but the petitioner deliberately turned it turtle and resultantly the prosecutrix sustained injuries and he left her there in an unconscious stage. Thereafter, the prosecutrix started to her home on the motorcycle of the petitioner, but the petitioner deliberately turned it turtle and resultantly the prosecutrix sustained injuries and he left her there in an unconscious stage. As per the prosecutrix, she was rescued by her uncle and aunt, when she shouted for help. Upon the statement, so made by the prosecutrix, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. The prosecutrix was medically examined and she was referred to CH Ghumarwin. Scientific samples were preserved for analysis. Spot map was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and the petitioner was arrested. As per the police, forensic report is awaited and challan is yet to be presented in the learned Trial Court. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence. The petitioner, at this stage, in case enlarged on bail, may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the bail application may be dismissed. 5. 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. 6. 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 permanent 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 no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when nothing remains to be recovered at his instance, investigation is complete, challan is likely to be presented in the learned Trial Court soon, the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, so the bail application may be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence. He has further argued that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, may flee from justice or may tamper with the prosecution evidence, as the trial is yet to begin, so the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 7. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence. He has further argued that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, may flee from justice or may tamper with the prosecution evidence, as the trial is yet to begin, so the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place, thus neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, nothing is to be recovered at his instance, custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, as the investigation is complete and challan is likely to be presented in the learned Trial Court soon, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 8. At this stage, considering the age of the petitioner, who is 26 years old and also the age of the prosecutrix, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place, so neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, as the investigation is complete, challan is likely to be presented in the learned Trial Court soon, the fact that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period and also considering all the facets of the case and without discussing the same elaborately at this stage, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police in case FIR No. 198 of 2020, dated 24.09.2020, under Sections 376, 323 and 427 of Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station Sadar Hamirpur, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 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.