Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 876 (HP)

Vijay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-12-08

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of anticipatory bail, in case FIR No. 116 of 2020, dated 31.10.2020, under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Janjehli, District Mandi, H.P. 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 the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. The prosecution story, as emerges from the records, is that on 31.10.2020, the complainant (the mother of the prosecutrix) has filed a complaint at Police Station Seraj, Janjehli, wherein it has been alleged that today she was apprised by the prosecutrix that on 21.10.2020, when the prosecutrix had gone to attend a marriage ceremony at village Jhamach, the accused forcibly took her inside a room and sexually assaulted her. The accused also threatened the prosecutrix not to disclose the incident to anyone or he will kill her and her family members. The accused also told the prosecutrix that he is a rich person and has apple orchard and in a similar incident, he had previously come to the police station and for her, if he is put behind the Bars, nothing would be happened. As per the complainant, on 29.10.2020 there was another marriage at Village Jhamach and when her daughters were coming home from the said marriage, the accused, who was hiding himself near road, suddenly came there and tried to hold her younger daughter inappropriately. However, her elder daughter managed to save her younger daughter from the clutches of the accused and she ran away from the spot. The accused again threatened them by saying that since your father is a Teacher, if anything to anyone is disclosed by them, his reputation in the society will be lowered, as such, the prosecutrix kept whole incident a secret. On the basis of the compliant made by the mother of the prosecutrix, FIR No. 116 of 2020, dated 31.10.2020, under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, came to be registered against the accused. On the basis of the compliant made by the mother of the prosecutrix, FIR No. 116 of 2020, dated 31.10.2020, under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, came to be registered against the accused. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and there is possibility that in case he is released on bail he may tamper/hamper the prosecution case. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the records, 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 petitioner is the only earner of the family and after completing his graduation, he is thinking to pursue his studies further and in case he is put behind the Bars, his whole career would be affected adversely. Lastly, he has argued that since the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the same, he may be released on bail. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a heinous crime and furthermore, he is not joining and cooperating with the investigation, so the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has vehemently argued that the petitioner is flouting the conditions of anticipatory bail, imposed by this Court, vide order dated 09.11.2020, as he is threatening the prosecutrix and her family members and being an influential person, tampering with the prosecution evidence, so his bail application be dismissed. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts which have come on record, this Court finds that the bail petitioner is neither joining the investigation nor cooperating in it. Further, during the period of interim bail granted to the petitioner, he threatened the witnesses and also threatened the prosecutrix and her family members to do away with their lives. Further, during the period of interim bail granted to the petitioner, he threatened the witnesses and also threatened the prosecutrix and her family members to do away with their lives. In these circumstances, considering the grave and serious nature of the offence, i.e. Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, and the fact that the petitioner is tampering with the prosecution evidence, this Court finds that the present is not a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. 8. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 9. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of disposing of this bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case. 10. In view of the above, the petition, so also pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.