Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 793 (HP)

Surjeet v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2021-10-01

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2021
ORDER : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. 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. 36 of 2021, dated 15.02.2021, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner is permanent resident of the place, thus 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 for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, father of the prosecutrix made a written complaint to the police, wherein he alleged that on 15.02.2021 his daughter, prosecutrix (name withheld), a student of 11th class, went to school and when she returned, she took Rs. 600/- from the complainant and went to Rampur for buying books. When the prosecutrix did not return, she was extensively searched, but in vain. The complainant apprehended that someone might have enticed her and taken her. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case under the apt sections and the investigation ensued. On 16.02.2021 the prosecutrix was seen roaming with Surjeet (petitioner herein), so the police brought both of them to the police station. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. As per the prosecutrix, the petitioner took her to Rampur by enticing her and he forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities, viz. recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared the spot map and arrested the petitioner. Both the petitioner and the prosecutrix were medically examined. Statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Police effected the relevant recoveries and collected the scientific samples. As per the medical opinion, possibility of forcible sexual assault is not ruled out. As per the police, on 16.04.2021 challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner has committed a serious crime. As per the medical opinion, possibility of forcible sexual assault is not ruled out. As per the police, on 16.04.2021 challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner has committed a serious crime. In case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. It is prayed that at this stage, the bail application of the petitioner 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, as he is permanent resident of the place. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, as investigation is complete, even challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, so the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police. Therefore, the petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and in case, at this stage, if he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. It is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner 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, as he is resident of the place. Investigation is complete, even challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, now the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police. It has been argued that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than six months and he 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. It has been argued that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than six months and he 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 19 years old, the matter in which the offence is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner the facts that investigation is complete, even challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, 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, now the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case he is enlarged on bail, the petitioner is permanent resident of the place, thus he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, and also considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, 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 petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in case FIR No. 36 of 2021, dated 15.02.2021, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., 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. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. (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.