Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 5 (HP)

Vikas Sidhu v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-01-01

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Applicant-Vikas Sidhu, has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), with a prayer to direct the Police/Investigating Officer of Women Police Station Solan, District Solan, H.P., to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No.51 of2024, dated 30.11.2024, registered, under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’). 2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case. 3. As per the applicant, he is visually impaired and has nothing to do with the alleged offence, in which, he has been arrayed, as accused. 4. According to the applicant, he is having no criminal history and is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the Police/Investigating Officer, under Section 482 of the BNSS. 5. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 6. On 21.11.2024, when the matter was taken up, the complainant-prosecutrix was ordered to be impleaded, as, party-respondent No.2. Notices were also served upon her, but, she has not opted to put appearance before this Court. 7. On notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 30.11.2024, the complainant appeared before the Police and made a complaint, that her husband expired about one year ago. Thereafter, she had developed acquaintance with the wife of a Chowkidar working in the Girl School, who has disclosed that her brother-in-law is serving at Shimla and the said lady had allured her to get married to him. 7.1. Thereafter, the prosecutrix and the applicant had exchanged their phone numbers. On 26 th November, 2024, they met at old bus stand, where, the applicant allegedly told the prosecutrix to sit in a room. Thereafter, on his insistence, she had gone to a room in a hotel, where the waiter was his relative. 7.2. Thereafter, after bolting the room from inside, the applicant has started doing obscene act with the prosecutrix and forcibly raped her. The applicant had allegedly not permitted her to leave the room and said that he will solemnize marriage with her. 7.3. On the next day, at 5.00 a.m., after taking bath, the applicant had gone to Shimla and thereafter, they were in touch on phone. The applicant had allegedly not permitted her to leave the room and said that he will solemnize marriage with her. 7.3. On the next day, at 5.00 a.m., after taking bath, the applicant had gone to Shimla and thereafter, they were in touch on phone. He has disclosed to the prosecutrix that on 11 th December, there is betrothal ceremony of his daughter and assured her that thereafter, he will solemnize marriage with her. 7.4. It is the further case of the prosecutrix that now, the applicant has refused to solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix. As such, she has prayed that action be taken against the accused. 8. After perusing the said status report, on 23.12.2024, interim protection was granted to the applicant with a direction to join the investigation and the matter was adjourned for 30.12.2024. 9. On 30.12.2024, the police filed the status report, according to which, the prosecutrix was medico- legally examined on 19.12.2024 and physical evidence, collected by the doctors, was taken into possession. The spot was visited and the spot map was prepared. 10. The applicant has joined the investigation on 24.12.2024. He was also medico-legally examined at Regional Hospital, Solan. During investigation, the applicant has disclosed that in the year 2002, he met with an accident at new bus-stand Shimla and he remained unconscious for three months and lost his eyesight. In the year 2023, in the heavy flood, his house has been damaged and his wife and daughter buried in the debris, due to which his wife expired and his daughter sustained injuries. 11. The applicant has also disclosed that the marriage of his daughter has been fixed for 18 th February, 2025. Since, there was no woman to look after his daughter, as such, he met the prosecutrix, through his friend Gopal. 12. The statement of the prosecutrix, was recorded, under Section 183(3) of the BNSS, in which, she has disclosed that on 26.09.2024, in order to meet applicant- Vikas Sidhu, he called him at old bus stand Solan, whereas, as per the CDR, on 26.9.2024, no phone call was made from the mobile phone of the applicant to the phone of the prosecutrix. 13. During investigation, it was found that as per the record of Kashyap Hotel, the applicant had stayed in Room No.8 and the name of prosecutrix has not been mentioned. 13. During investigation, it was found that as per the record of Kashyap Hotel, the applicant had stayed in Room No.8 and the name of prosecutrix has not been mentioned. The name of the lady, who had allegedly stayed with the applicant, was found to be Dimple, aged 40 years. 14. During investigation, the applicant has disclosed that he has wrongly mentioned the name of the prosecutrix, who stayed with him, as Dimple. During investigation, the applicant has produced the attested photocopy of the disability certificate, according to which, he is 100% visually impaired. The disability is permanent in nature. 15. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 16. In the status report, it has been mentioned that the applicant has joined the investigation. As per the stand taken by the Police, in the status report, he is 100%visually impaired. 17. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances that the applicant is 100% visually impaired and the alleged incident was of 26.9.2024 and complaint was made on 30.11.2024, this Court is of the view that although the said fact is to be considered by the learned trial Court at the time of final conclusion of the trial, but, for the purpose of bail, the said facts cannot be ignored. 18. Moreover, at the time of deciding the bail application, detailed discussion about the case of the prosecution is not justifiable, as, the same would cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution, as well as, that of the accused. 19. The role, attributed to the applicant, in the commission of the alleged crime, will be proved, during the course of trial. 20. As such, this Court is of the view that the interim protection, granted to the applicant, is required to be made absolute, as, no useful purpose would be served by dismissing the present application, which would result into the judicial custody of the applicant. 21. 20. As such, this Court is of the view that the interim protection, granted to the applicant, is required to be made absolute, as, no useful purpose would be served by dismissing the present application, which would result into the judicial custody of the applicant. 21. Considering all these facts, the interim order dated 23.12.2024, passed by this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the following conditions: a) That the applicant will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; b) That the applicant will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicant 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 the Court; and d) That the applicant shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application. 22. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present application. 23. The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when charge sheet will be filed in the Competent Court of Law. 24. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicant.