Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 850 (HP)

Ravinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-11-24

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, for grant of bail in case FIR No. 56/2020, dated 18.07.2020, under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Section 67 of IT Act, registered at Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, he is permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh 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. As per the prosecution story, on 18.07.2020, complaint of prosecutrix (name withheld), alongwith Rapat No. 13 was produced in Police Station Shillai, wherein it was alleged that in the month of February, the prosecutrix, who is pursuing her Graduation from Nahan College, become acquainted with the accused and started talking with him on phone. In the same month, the accused divulged her that today is his birthday and he called the prosecutrix in his birthday party. In the party, the accused was under the influence of liquor and he also served liquor to the prosecutrix. Thereafter, he took the prosecutrix to Renukaji Hotel at Nahan and during night hours, when the prosecutrix regained consciousness, she found herself in a naked state. Thereafter, on that night, they also made physical relations with each other. However, afterwards, the prosecutrix came to know from someone that the accused made her naked photo viral between his friends on Whatsapp and Facebook and when the prosecutrix asked her as to why he had done so, the accused threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone, or he will implicate her and her family in a false case. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, FIR No. 56/2020, dated 18.07.2020, under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Section 67 of IT Act, came to be registered against the petitioner. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a heinous crime. There is possibility that in case at this stage the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a heinous crime. There is possibility that in case at this stage 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. 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(s), 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 permanent resident of District Sirmaur 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. He has argued that keeping in view the material, which has come on record, and also the age of the petitioner, as well as of the prosecutrix, the bail application be allowed. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a heinous 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. 6. At this stage, considering the age of the petitioner and of the prosecutrix, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have occurred, the fact that petitioner and the prosecutrix were in relationship with each other, the fact that the petitioner is permanent resident of District Sirmaur and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the conditions of bail, if so granted, the fact that the investigation is complete, considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing them at this stage and also the fact that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, 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 present petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 56/2020, dated 18.07.2020, under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Section 67 of IT Act, shall be released on bail forthwith, in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty Five 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. 7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.