Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 299 (HP)

Harbans Chaudhary v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-07

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No.255 of 2024, dated 29.08.2024, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 ( in short ' BNS' ). The police have completed the investigation, and the petitioner’s custody is not required. The petitioner had also lodged F.I.R. No. 94 of 2024, dated 18.03.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 120B and 420 of IPC at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram, against the victim and her friends for embezzlement of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores). The victim and her friends were arrested in the said F.I.R. The victim had lodged the present F.I.R. after getting bail in the FIR lodged by the petitioner. The call detail records do not show that the petitioner had visited Una in November 2023, when the incident is stated to have taken place. The victim wants to get more money from the petitioner by filing a false complaint against her. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim made a complaint to the police that she was employed in the petitioner’s company. The petitioner hired a flat in Gurugram and asked the victim to shift to the flat. He also increased her salary. He visited the victim’s flat in March 2021 and raped her. He also threatened the victim. The victim could not report the matter to anyone as she was alone at Gurugram and apprehensive about her safety. The petitioner took her to various hotels where he raped her. He threatened the victim to upload her pictures on social media. The victim shifted to Canada with her husband, but the petitioner continued to threaten her. He asked the victim to return to India, or he would send her indecent pictures to her husband. The victim returned to India in August 2023, and the petitioner took her to a flat in Gurugram, where he raped her. The victim visited Una in November 2023. The petitioner took her to Peer Nigah Road and raped her in a car. The petitioner purchased some stamp papers at Una, and he put the victim’s forged signatures on them. The victim returned to India in August 2023, and the petitioner took her to a flat in Gurugram, where he raped her. The victim visited Una in November 2023. The petitioner took her to Peer Nigah Road and raped her in a car. The petitioner purchased some stamp papers at Una, and he put the victim’s forged signatures on them. 3. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. The victim refused to undergo a medical examination. The police collected call details and location records of the mobile phones of the petitioner and victim. The police found that the petitioner’s phone location was not at Una in November 2023. The police collected the hotel records and found that the victim and petitioner had booked rooms in the hotels. The Stamp Vendor stated that he had supplied the stamp papers to the victim after entering her Aadhar Card and PAN number in his register. As per the opinion of the Medical Officer, the possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. The challan was filed before the Court and is now listed for consideration of charge on 22.03.2025. 4. I have heard Mr Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Gautam Sood, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State and Mr. H.S. Rana, learned counsel for the victim. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to the Charge sheet in F.I.R. lodged at the instance of the petitioner to submit that the relationship between the petitioner and victim is strained. The victim and her friends were arrested for committing fraud and forging the documents. The victim lodged the present F.I.R. after she was released on bail in the F.I.R registered against her. The victim’s F.I.R. is a counterblast to the petitioner’s F.I.R. He prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Gautam Sood, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner pertains to some other transaction and has no relevance to the present F.I.R. The victim specifically stated in the present FIR that the petitioner took her to various hotels where he raped her. The record collected by the Investigating Agency clearly shows that the petitioner and the victim had stayed together in various hotels, which corroborates the victim’s testimony. The record collected by the Investigating Agency clearly shows that the petitioner and the victim had stayed together in various hotels, which corroborates the victim’s testimony. The offence is heinous, and the petitioner can intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. Mr. H.S. Rana, learned counsel for the victim, adopted the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent/State. He submitted that the victim’s statement regarding the commission of the rape is duly corroborated by the material collected during the investigation. The pendency of the dispute with the victim will not give any licence to the petitioner to rape the victim. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem, (2024) 10 SCC 768 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under at page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail 26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., ( 2004) 7 SCC 525 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977; Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] 10. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of M.P. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068 , wherein it was observed as under:- “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra, (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 15 SCC 570 , this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms:— “15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 2 SCC 779 , laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the bail application and observed: “ 4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.”(Emphasis supplied) 11. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.”(Emphasis supplied) 11. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. Perusal of the status report shows that incident had taken place in the year 2021 and continued till November 2023. The F.I.R. was lodged by the victim in August 2024. The victim admitted in her complaint that F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner against her, in which she was arrested in April and bailed out in July 2024. This admission prima facie supports the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the present F.I.R. was lodged after the victim was arrested at the instance of the petitioner. Further, the long silence of the victim is a relevant circumstance to determine the prima facie correctness of the allegations made by her. 13. The victim asserted that she had gone to Una in November 2023 when the petitioner took her towards Peer Nigah in a vehicle and raped her. It has been specifically mentioned in the status report that the call detail record of the petitioner does not show his presence in Una in November 2023. 14. The victim was taken for her medical examination, but she declined to undergo her medical examination, and there is no corroboration from the medical evidence. 15. A heavy reliance was placed upon the fact that the petitioner and the victim had stayed together in the hotels. This circumstance has to be seen with the contemporaneous conduct of the victim of not making any complaint to any person and her long silence in reporting the matter to the police. 16. The victim asserted that the petitioner threatened to send her pictures to her relatives and upload them on the social media platform. The police have not stated anything in the status report that any indecent pictures were found in the mobile phone of the petitioner seized by the police. Therefore, this allegation was not established during the investigation. 17. The victim stated that the petitioner had obtained the documents in her name from the Stamp Vendor at Una, and he forged her signatures on the documents. Therefore, this allegation was not established during the investigation. 17. The victim stated that the petitioner had obtained the documents in her name from the Stamp Vendor at Una, and he forged her signatures on the documents. The status report shows that the Stamp Vendor specifically stated that the documents were purchased by the victim in her name, and she had furnished her Aadhar Card and PAN card as proof of identity. Thus, this allegation is also not corroborated on record. 18. Mr Gautam Sood, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner can influence the victim in case of his release on bail. 19. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner cannot be detained in judicial custody based on the apprehension, which can be removed by imposing stringent conditions. 20. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of Delhi. This was not stated to be incorrect in the status report, which means that he has roots in society, and there is no likelihood of his absconding. 21. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The petitioner, while on bail, will abide by the following terms and conditions: - i) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (iii) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the concerned Police Station and the Court. (iv) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; (v) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner, whatsoever and shall not dissuade any person from speaking the truth in relation to the facts of the case in hand. (vi) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number, and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. (vi) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number, and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 22. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have a right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 23. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case 24. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, District Jail Una at Bangarh, District Una, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 25. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.