Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 300 (HP)

Dheeraj v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2021-05-06

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2021
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. 147/2020, dated 25.12.2020, under Sections 342, 376 and 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Fatehpur, District Kangra, 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 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 25.12.2020, the prosecutrix (name withheld) made a written complaint against the accused, alleging therein that on 24.12.2020, at about 5:30 p.m., the accused saw her in Fatehpur market and made a telephonic call on her mobile and the accused asked her to meet him for five minutes. Since the accused was known to prosecutrix, she went to meet him at Fatehpur Bus Stand, where accused offered her lift in his car. When the car was crossing the Fatehpur Bridge, the accused stopped his car and offered water to the prosecutrix and forced her to drink the same. After drinking water, the prosecutrix became unconscious and accused told her that he made a video of her and he will upload the same on facebook. On that pretext, the accused took the prosecutrix to some unknown place, threatened her and committed wrong act with her and around 2:30 a.m. (midnight), dropped her to her house. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, FIR No. 147/2020, dated 25.12.2020, under Sections 342, 376 and 506 of IPC, came to be registered against the petitioner. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a heinous crime and there is possibility that in case, at this stage, he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and also flee from justice. 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. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. 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. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned Counsel, has argued that the petitioner and prosecutrix were known to each other and only at the instance of the parents of the prosecutrix he has been implicated in this case. He has further argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of District Kangra and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and 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 and that 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 that of the prosecutrix, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have occurred, the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars from approximately five months, the fact that the petitioner is permanent resident of District Kangra 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. So 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. 147/2020, dated 25.12.2020, under Sections 342, 376 and 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Fatehpur, District Kangra, 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) 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.