Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 December, 2019
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. 2139 of 2019
Decided on: 16.12.2019
Sanjeev Kumar ....Petitioner
.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. Pratap Singh Goverdhan, Advocate.
For the respondent/State: Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans and Mr. P.K.
Bhatti, Additional Advocates General,
with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy
Advocate General.
r A.S.I. Rajender Kumar, P.S. Kasauli,
District Solan, H.P.
______________________________________________________________________
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral)
The present bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been maintained by the petitioner for releasing him on bail in case FIR No. 19/2019, dated 23.03.2019, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (for short "POCSO") Act, registered at Police Station Kasauli, District Solan, H.P.
2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, he is permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh and neither in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2019 20:27:47 :::HCHP 2 a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.
.
3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 23.03.2019 father of the prosecutrix (complainant) made a complaint to the police and alleged that on 20.03.2019, the prosecutrix (name withheld), who went to school for appearing in her matriculation examination, did not return home and on inquiry, his elder daughter informed him that the prosecutrix was in touch with Sanjeev Kumar over mobile phone and he is under suspicion that Sanjeev Kumar has kidnapped the prosecutrix (who is minor) by alluring her. On the basis of the complaint, so filed by the complainant, FIR No. 19/2019, dated 23.03.2019, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act came to be registered against the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police reports, carefully.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant and if the statement of the prosecutrix is seen, she has nowhere supported the case of the prosecution. He has further argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of District Shimla ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2019 20:27:47 :::HCHP 3 and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has argued that keeping in view the statement of the prosecutrix and .
also the age of the petitioner, the bail application be allowed and the petitioner, who is in jail, be released on bail. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a heinous offence, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed.
6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
7. At this stage, considering the age of the petitioner, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have occurred, the fact that petitioner and prosecutrix wanted to marry each other, the fact that there is love affair between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, the fact that the petitioner is permanent resident of District Shimla and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the conditions of bail, if so granted, considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2019 20:27:47 :::HCHP 4 at this stage and also the fact that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour.
.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 19/2019, dated 23.03.2019, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:
(i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required.
(ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
(iii) That the petitioner 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 Court.
8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.
Copy dasti.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
December 16, 2019 Judge
(raman)
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2019 20:27:47 :::HCHP