Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 550 (HP)

Kushma Rana v. State of Himachal Pradesh -

2025-03-28

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. The applicants, apprehending their arrests, in case FIR No.21 of 2025, dated 28.01.2025, registered, under Sections 498-A, 354, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), have filed the above titled applications, 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 Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., to release them on bail, in the event of their arrest. 2. According to the applicants, they are innocent persons and have falsely been implicated, in this case. They have termed the entire allegations, which have been levelled, in the FIR, against them, as false. 3. Apart from this, the applicants have given the history of litigation, which have taken place between their son and the complainant, who had lodged the FIR. 4. On the basis of the above facts, they have given certain undertaking, for which, they are ready to abide by. Hence, a prayer has been made that the I.O., Police Station Palampur, may kindly be directed to release the applicants on bail, in the event of their arrest. 5. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that one zero FIR was registered with Police Station, Palampur, District Kangra. The FIR was registered on the statement of Pratima Rana, wherein, she has alleged that she was married with Akhil Rana, on 15.10.2017. The said marriage was stated to be love-cum-arrange marriage. 5.1. The father of the complainant had given dowry/Stridhan, as per his capacity. In this regard, she has enclosed the list of the dowry with the complaint, which is stated to be in possession of the accused persons. The complaint has been moved against the present applicants, as well as, their son Akhil Rana. 5.2. According to the complainant, the applicants were not satisfied with the marriage and they were expecting more dowry in the marriage, as according to the complainant, her father is working in the intelligence department. 5.3. According to the complainant, the accused used to maltreat her and taunting her for bringing less dowry. The applicants tried to get rid from the complainant, by saying that they can marry their son with another girl. She has alleged that applicant Sarabeet Singh also keeps evil eye on her. 5.4. 5.3. According to the complainant, the accused used to maltreat her and taunting her for bringing less dowry. The applicants tried to get rid from the complainant, by saying that they can marry their son with another girl. She has alleged that applicant Sarabeet Singh also keeps evil eye on her. 5.4. According to the complainant, once she was sleeping in her room, accused Sarabjeet Singh (applicant) tried to outrage her modesty. When, the complainant resisted, then the said accused proclaimed that it is his right. In this regard, she has made complaint to accused Akhil Rana, but, he had not paid any heed. Thereafter, accused Sarabjeet Singh also tried to forcibly outrage her modesty, despite screaming, accused Kushma Rana (applicant), closed the door. 6. On the basis of the above facts, she has prayed that action be taken against the accused persons. 7. After perusing the said status report, interim protection was granted to the applicants, as well as, their son Akhil Rana, on 03.03.2025. 8. In the status report, which was filed later on, it has been mentioned that the applicants have not joined the investigation. As such, a direction was given to the applicants to join the investigation. 9. In the status report, which has been filed today, it has been mentioned that the investigation has been conducted by visiting the house of the applicants. Both of them had stated that their son Akhil Rana had gone to Singapore, in order to attend a course and will return home on 30.03.2025. Thereafter, he will also join the investigation. 10. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 11. Heard. 12. In the status reports, which have been filed in this case, there is no iota of evidence that the custodial interrogation of the applicants are required by the Police. When, the police is not come forward with the said prayer, then, there is no occasion, for this Court, to decline the relief to the applicants, as claimed, in the applications. 13. Even otherwise, the allegations, which have been levelled against the applicants, in the complaint, will be proved, during the trial. 14. The applications cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment, as pre-trial punishment, is prohibited under the law. 13. Even otherwise, the allegations, which have been levelled against the applicants, in the complaint, will be proved, during the trial. 14. The applications cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment, as pre-trial punishment, is prohibited under the law. In such situation, rejection of the applications would be nothing, but, to punish them prior to the commencement and conclusion of trial. 15. Considering the totality of circumstances, 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. 16. Considering all these facts, the interim order dated 03.03.2025, passed by this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the following conditions: a) That the applicants will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; b) That the applicants will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicants 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 applicants 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. 17. 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. 18. The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when charge sheet will be filed in the Competent Court of Law. 19. 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.