Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 413 (HP)

Prakash Singh v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2021-07-16

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2021
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The instant bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release, in case FIR No. 37 of 2019, dated 29.08.2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, registered at Women Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is 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, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. Succinctly, the prosecution story, as emanates from the records is that on 29.08.2019 father of the prosecutrix (complainant herein) made a complaint to the police alleging that he is resident of Chitarkoot, Uttar Pradesh, and for the last six years residing alongwith his family in a rented accommodation at Baddi. On 28.08.2019, at about 09:30 a.m., his daughter, prosecutrix (name withheld), went to school for procuring her mark- sheet, but, thereafter she did not turn-up and despite an extensive search efforts, she could not be traced. The complainant apprehended that someone has taken the prosecutrix by enticing her. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Police procured the date of birth records of the prosecutrix and recorded the statements of the witnesses. During the course of investigation, police found the mobile location of the prosecutrix in the area of Surat, Gujrat, so a police team was sent. On 23.12.2019 the prosecutrix alongwith the petitioner was traced in a rented accommodation in Surat, Gujrat. Upon the identification of the prosecutrix, police prepared a spot map and effected relevant recoveries. The petitioner was arrested and was medically examined. Statement of the prosecutrix, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was recorded. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. As per the medical opinion, the victim/prosecutrix had undergone sexual intercourse, but there is no evidence of recent forceful sexual intercourse. As per the police, on 18.02.2020, after completion of investigation, police presented the challan in the learned Trial Court and supplementary challan was also presented on 17.07.2020. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. As per the medical opinion, the victim/prosecutrix had undergone sexual intercourse, but there is no evidence of recent forceful sexual intercourse. As per the police, on 18.02.2020, after completion of investigation, police presented the challan in the learned Trial Court and supplementary challan was also presented on 17.07.2020. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner has committed a heinous crime. There is possibility that in case at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, as he is resident of Uttar Pradesh, and may tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his bail application be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, 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. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, as investigation is complete, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner and challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court. The custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for investigation, so the petitioner is required to be enlarged on bail by allowing the instant bail application. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and he is resident of Uttar Pradesh, so in case he is, at this stage, if enlarged on bail, may flee from justice or may tamper with the prosecution evidence, so the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. His custody is not at all required by the police, as the investigation is complete, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, even the challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court. His custody is not at all required by the police, as the investigation is complete, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, even the challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court. Moreover, the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by allowing the instant bail petition. 7. At this stage, considering the age of the petitioner, who is only 23 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 neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, considering the facts that investigation is complete, challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than six months and cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, and also considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, 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, in case FIR No. 37 of 2019, dated 29.08.2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, registered at Women Police Station Baddi, District Solan, 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. 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. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. 9. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove are only confined for adjudication of the present case and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case, which shall be adjudicated on its own. Copy dasti.