Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 635 (HP)

Dinesh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-04-04

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. Apprehending his arrest, in case FIR No.13/2025 dated 13.02.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 64 , 308 (2) , 351 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ BNS ’), with Police Station Khundian, District Kangra, H.P., applicant-Dinesh Kumar has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNS S’). 2. By way of the present application, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the I.O/police of Police Station Khundian, District Kangra, H.P., to release him, on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-mentioned case/FIR. 3. The said relief has been sought on the ground that he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case. 4. According to the applicant, he is permanent resident of the address, as mentioned in the application and belongs to the respectable family, having deep roots in the society. 5. On the basis of above facts, certain undertakings have been given, on behalf of applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the police/I.O., in this case. 6. Vide order dated 25.02.2025, State was directed to file the status report and consequently, status report had been filed. 7. As per the status report, which has been filed on 25.02.2025, on 13.02.2025, the prosecutrix, who, in this case, has been ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.2, vide order dated 11.03.2025, appeared before the police and made the complaint, mentioning therein that she is resident of the address, as mentioned in the application. According to her, she is married, whereas, accused Dinesh Thakur S/o Nand Lal Thakur (applicant), is the resident of Village Churad, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. and doing the business of construction of road. 7.1. As per the complaint, made by respondent No.2, said Dinesh Kumar (applicant) had taken a room on rent near the house of the prosecutrix. The applicant thereafter obtained the mobile number of prosecutrix and starting calling her and also clicked her photographs. Not only this, the applicant used to call prosecutrix from different mobile numbers. 7.2. 7.1. As per the complaint, made by respondent No.2, said Dinesh Kumar (applicant) had taken a room on rent near the house of the prosecutrix. The applicant thereafter obtained the mobile number of prosecutrix and starting calling her and also clicked her photographs. Not only this, the applicant used to call prosecutrix from different mobile numbers. 7.2. Complainant has further alleged that the applicant had given a proposal to solemnize the marriage with her, but the said proposal was turned down by the complainant, on the ground that she is married, having two children. She has also told the applicant that neither, she is in love with him, nor she can solemnize the marriage with him, upon which, the applicant allegedly started threatening her by saying that the photographs, which he had clicked, will be shown to her husband, as well as, her family members. Whenever, the applicant found the complainant all alone, then, the applicant came there under the influence of liquor and forcefully ravished her. Despite the fact that the complainant begged mercy, applicant did not adhere to her request and ravished her. 7.3. The complainant, according to her further version, did not complain to her husband or her family members, as, according to her, since, she is married, she was afraid that her matrimonial life may not disturb and on account of the social stigma also, she remained silent. 7.4. It is the further case of the complainant that her husband is working in Army and used to come on leave only for two months in a year. She is residing with her two children and the applicant had taken the benefit of this fact and ravished her and also clicked her private photographs and videos. On the basis of the said photographs and videos, applicant used to blackmail her and also beaten her. Not only this, the applicant threatened to made an attempt to kill her and also slapped her 5-year-old daughter. 7.5. It is the further case of the police that as per the complaint, made by the complainant, due to the physical relations, which the applicant had allegedly made with her forcefully, she got pregnant twice. However, the applicant got the foetus aborted by administering some medicines to her. 7.5. It is the further case of the police that as per the complaint, made by the complainant, due to the physical relations, which the applicant had allegedly made with her forcefully, she got pregnant twice. However, the applicant got the foetus aborted by administering some medicines to her. When, the complainant became pregnant on the second occasion, Dinesh Kumar (applicant) had blackmailed her and forced the complainant to pay Rs.50,000/- in cash and Rs.10,000/- through GPay. Not only this, he has also demanded a mobile phone, value of which was of Rs.18,000/- and the complainant was forced to purchase the same. 7.6. It is the further case of the police that the applicant has also snatched her gold and silver ornaments and when, she has demanded those ornaments, applicant threatened her to burn her children alive. Applicant is stated to be addicted of chitta and under the influence of chitta, he used to ravish her. The complainant has also made the complaint to police on 16.01.2025, but, no action was taken. On the said complaint, the police called Dinesh Kumar (applicant) on 17.01.2025 and 22.01.2025. However, police, as well as, applicant started pressurizing her to take her complaint back and they had paid Rs.65,000/- through GPay in her account. 7.7. On the basis of above facts, the complainant has lastly mentioned in the complaint that the applicant is still threatening her to make her photographs and videos viral. Hence, a request has been made to take action against the applicant. 8. On the basis of above facts, police has lodged the FIR, under Sections 64 , 308 (2) and 351 (2) of BNS and criminal machinery swung into motion. 9. Thereafter, prosecutrix was taken to Civil Hospital, Khundian, for her medico legal examination. However, due to the non-availability of the lady doctor, she was medico legally examined at Civil Hospital, Jwalamukhi. The physical evidence, so collected by the doctor, was handed over to the police, which was also taken into possession. 10. On 14.02.2025, spot was visited and the physical evidence, from there, had also taken into possession. Similarly, the residential house of the prosecutrix was also visited and from the backside of the room, underneath of the window, physical evidence such as half-burnt pieces of cigarettes and other articles, were also taken into possession. 11. 10. On 14.02.2025, spot was visited and the physical evidence, from there, had also taken into possession. Similarly, the residential house of the prosecutrix was also visited and from the backside of the room, underneath of the window, physical evidence such as half-burnt pieces of cigarettes and other articles, were also taken into possession. 11. During investigation, the prosecutrix produced two mobiles phones, which were also taken into possession. 12. On 15.02.2025, the prosecutrix was produced before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, and her statement, under Section 183 of BNSS , was got recorded. 13. On the basis of above facts, interim protection was given to the applicant, till 04.03.2025. On that day, police has filed the status report, in which, it has been mentioned that on 28.02.2025, applicant appeared before the police and denied all the allegations, which have been levelled against him and put forward his own version. 14. Thereafter, the applicant was medico legally examined from Civil Hospital, Khundian and the physical evidence, so collected by the doctor, was handed over to the police. 15. On 01.03.2025, the applicant has produced the mobile phone, which was also taken into police possession. 16. It is the further case of the police that despite joining the investigation, applicant is not disclosing anything about the gold and silver ornaments. According to the police, the mobile phone, which the applicant had allegedly thrown away, has not yet been recovered. 17. It has been apprehended that the applicant has committed a serious offence and in case, the interim order is made absolute, he may coerce the witnesses and may also adversely affect the investigation. 18. Thereafter, the police has filed the status report on 25.03.2025, disclosing therein that on 22.03.2025, complainant has produced a mobile phone and currency notes of Rs.50,000/- which were also taken into police possession. 19. In the status report, which has been filed on 01.04.2025, it has been pleaded that the accused has joined the investigation. The Service Provider has been requested to provide the CDRs of the mobile phones of the prosecutrix, as well as, of the applicant and the said record has been received. As per the CDRs, the applicant and the prosecutrix had called each other number of times. According to the status report, the report from RFSL, Dharamshala is still awaited. 20. The Service Provider has been requested to provide the CDRs of the mobile phones of the prosecutrix, as well as, of the applicant and the said record has been received. As per the CDRs, the applicant and the prosecutrix had called each other number of times. According to the status report, the report from RFSL, Dharamshala is still awaited. 20. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the present bail application. 21. In the present case, the prosecutrix i.e. respondent No.2 has also put appearance, through her counsel and has also opposed the prayer for bail. 22. In this case, it has been pointed out by learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the applicant, that the prosecutrix in her complaint has alleged that she has made complaints on 17.01.2025 and 22.01.2025 with Police Station Khundian and according to her, the police has not taken any action against the applicant. However, in the status reports, which have been filed by the police, before this Court, no such averment has been mentioned in the same. 23. The applicant has joined the investigation and in none of the status reports, it has been prayed that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. When, the police is not coming forward for the custodial interrogation of the applicant, then, the application for bail cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment, as pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law. 24. Even otherwise, the allegations, which have been levelled against the applicant by the prosecutrix, would be proved during the trial. However, considering the fact that in the complaint, she has not alleged anything about the date, time and year, when, she was allegedly ravished by the applicant for the first time and no specific allegations have been levelled in the complaint. 25. No doubt, the FIR is not the encyclopedia of the events, but, for the limited purpose of deciding the question of bail, the averments, as made in the complaint, can be taken into consideration. 26. Moreover, the applicant is permanent resident of District Mandi and as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, the interim order is made absolute, he may not be available for the trial. 27. 26. Moreover, the applicant is permanent resident of District Mandi and as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, the interim order is made absolute, he may not be available for the trial. 27. So far as the apprehensions, which have been expressed by the police, in this case, are concerned, for those apprehensions, reasonable conditions can be imposed, upon the applicant, in case, interim order is made absolute. 28. Furthermore, investigation in the present case is almost complete, as, according to the status report, filed on 01.04.2025, only report from RFSL, Dharamshala is awaited. 29. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the interim order, dated 25.02.2025, is liable to be confirmed. Consequently, interim order, dated 25.02.2025, is made absolute and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, subject to furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 30. This order, however, shall be 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; 31. 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 bail application. 32. The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when chargesheet will be filed in the competent Court of law. 33. 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.