Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 215 (HP)

Malvika Tuli v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2023-04-13

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this application, filed under Section 439 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant/complainant has approached this Court for cancellation of the bail granted by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No.1552 of 2022, titled as Abhineet Chauhan Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, in FIR No.16 of 2022, dated 13.07.2022, registered at Women Police Station, BCS, Shimla, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. This Court in a petition filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, had granted bail to the petitioner in terms of order dated 19.07.2022, on the conditions contained therein, which included the condition that the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever. 3. By way of this application, the complainant has alleged that the conditions so imposed upon the accused while granting anticipatory bail were violated by him as he tried to influence one witness, namely, Ms. Prinka Pista, by threatening her, who happened to be a witness in the FIR and who had reported this matter in writing to the SHO, Kandaghat. 4. Notices were issued to the parties and status report stood filed by the respondent/ State and reply to the petition was also filed by respondent No.1, initially through Superintendent of Police, Shimla, H.P., in which it was mentioned that as the issues raised in the application were not relatable to the deponent, therefore, he was not in a position to respond thereto. When the affidavit was being dealt with by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the complaint stood filed by the witness before SHO, Kandaghat, therefore, it will be in the interest of justice in case response is sought from the concerned Police Station. 5. In these circumstances, this Court on the request of learned Additional Advocate General granted time to the State to file response to the appreciation made for cancellation of the bail through the concerned authorities. 6. Supplementary affidavit stands filed by Superintendent of Police, Solan, H.P., dated 28.03.2023, in terms whereof, it stands admitted that a complaint was indeed received from Ms. 6. Supplementary affidavit stands filed by Superintendent of Police, Solan, H.P., dated 28.03.2023, in terms whereof, it stands admitted that a complaint was indeed received from Ms. Prinyanka Pista, with regard to her being harassed by the accused as to why she was deposing as a witness in the dispute between him and his wife, but she later on resiled on the ground the complaint was filed on account of some misunderstanding and accordingly, the complaint was subsequently closed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 8. Having perused the supplementary affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, Solan, H.P., alongwith which the complaint filed by the witness against the accused is appended, all that this Court can observe is that the affidavit in a very innocuous manner tries to hush up the seriousness of the allegations that stand raised by way of the present application by the complainant with regard to the misconduct of the accused. 9. Least to say that the complaint which was made by the witness, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure R-1, reveals serious allegations made against the accused which contain the factum of the accused harassing the witness by entering in her cabin and passing comments and threatening the witness that he would throw acid on her and Ms. Tuli. It was also mentioned in the complaint that the witness was disturbed by the threats which were being held out to her by the accused and she was under severe mental trauma on account of the psychological trauma and derogating remarks being meted out to her by the accused. It was further mentioned in the application that she had repeatedly informed the authorities verbally about the harassment, but nothing was being done by the authorities and an awkward situation was created by the accused who was repeatedly sitting in her cabin in front of her. 10. Annexure R-2, appended with the petition is the Daily Diary, dated 15.11.2022, in terms whereof, the complaint has been closed by the police by mentioning that the complaint stood withdrawn by the complainant on the ground that it was got registered due to some misunderstanding. 10. Annexure R-2, appended with the petition is the Daily Diary, dated 15.11.2022, in terms whereof, the complaint has been closed by the police by mentioning that the complaint stood withdrawn by the complainant on the ground that it was got registered due to some misunderstanding. The police also rather than investigating as to whether the complaint was being withdrawn by the witness under some duress or not, in a mechanical manner, closed the complaint. 11. By no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the complaint which was made by the witness, taking into consideration the contents whereof, was a result of some misunderstanding. Had that been so, nothing prevented the accused from seeking appropriate remedy against the witness for lodging a false complaint against him. This admittedly was not done. 12. In such like situation, all that this Court can safely infer is that there is merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that indeed the conditions imposed by this Court at the time when anticipatory bail was granted and confirmed to the accused/petitioner, stands flouted by him by inducing threats to one of the witness and probably by subsequently forcing her to withdraw the complaint. 13. Accordingly, present application is allowed by recalling the orders of protection granted to the petitioner/accused vide order dated 19.07.2022, in Cr.MP(M) No.1552 of 2022, titled as Abhineet Chauhan Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, in FIR No.16 of 2022, dated 13.07.2022, registered at Women Police Station, BCS, Shimla, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. In other words, bail granted to the accused is hereby cancelled. 14. Though, this petition is being closed on merit, however, a separate show cause notice is hereby issued to Superintendent of Police, Solan, H.P., to demonstrate as to what exercise was undertaken by the authorities before the complaint filed by the witness was ordered to be closed, to ensure that the withdrawal of the complaint by the witness was not under some duress. Let, needful be done by 01.05.2023, on the said date Superintendent of Police, Solan, H.P., shall remain present in the Court alongwith all relevant record.