Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 841 (HP)

Ajay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-11-13

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - 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.24 of 2019, dated 2.6.2019, under Sections 452, 354, 354 (A) (1) (i), 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67-A, of the Information Technology Act, registered at Women Police Station Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh 2. 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. 3. Police report stands filed. The prosecution story, as emanates from the records, is that on 2.6.2019, the prosecutrix (name withheld) alongwith her mother made a written complaint to the police, wherein she alleged that 7-8 days back, when her parents went to the market, she was all alone in her jhuggi (hut), at that time, Ajay Kumar (petitioner herein) came to her hut and started pressing her breasts and also threatened her with dire consequences. The prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner may have also videographed the incident. Upon the complaint, so made by the prosecutrix, police registered a case, under the apt sections and the investigation ensued. Police visited the spot, prepared the spot map and also clicked photographs. The petitioner was arrested and during the course of interrogation, it was unearthed that the petitioner has made a video and the same was sent by him to his relatives. During the course of interrogation and investigation one of the relatives of the prosecutrix produced a pendrive, wherein the petitioner stored the obscene video. The police recorded the statements of the witnesses and also completed all the codal formalities. Police also made the relevant recoveries and scientific samples were sent for forensic analysis. The prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner sexually molested her and also videographed it. As per the police, the medical evidence suggests that the prosecutrix had undergone sexual intercourse, but there is no evidence of recent forceful sexual intercourse. Report qua mobile data has been received from SFSL, Junga. The prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner sexually molested her and also videographed it. As per the police, the medical evidence suggests that the prosecutrix had undergone sexual intercourse, but there is no evidence of recent forceful sexual intercourse. Report qua mobile data has been received from SFSL, Junga. During the course of investigation, it was unearthed that the petitioner committed sexual assault upon the petitioner and also threatened her. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a serious offence, and there is possibility that in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice and tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 4. 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. 5. 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 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 keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, as the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police and supplementary challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, as he is permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh, so it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. 6. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the wake of the facts that the petitioner is behind the bars for considerably long time and he cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by police, nothing remains to be recovered at his instance, the petitioner is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and also considering the facts that investigation is complete, even supplemantary challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, so the present bail application may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the age of the petitioner and that of the prosecutrix, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than one year and cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period and also considering the facts that the investigation is complete, even the supplementary challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court and also considering the overall facts, which emerge from the records, and without discussing the same elaborately at this stage, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in this case FIR No.24 of 2019, dated 2.6.2019, under Sections 452, 354, 354 (A) (1), 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67-A, of the Information Technology Act, registered at Women Police Station Baddi, District Solan, on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) 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 join investigation of case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law and will appear before the Court. ii. That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. iii. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: i. That the petitioner will join investigation of case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law and will appear before the Court. 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.