Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajesh @ Surya vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 14 December, 2020
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 2187 of 2020 .
Date of Decision: 14th December, 2020
Rajesh @ Surya ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 yes
For the petitioner: Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore and Prashant Sharma,
r Advocates.
For the respondent: Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate
General with Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, Advocate
COURT PROCEEDINGS CONVENED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE Anoop Chitkara, Judge (oral).
The petitioner, who is under incarceration in FIR No.90 of 2018 dated 26.7.2018 registered under Sections 376, 506, Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act, at Police Station Chopal, District Shimla for establishing coitus with a girl-victim aged 14 years has come up before this Court seeking regular bail.
2. Notice. Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appears and accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondent-State.
3. While arguing the matter, Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to draw attention of this Court to the statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.PC and the statements recorded on oath. However, a perusal of this petition shows that no such documents have been annexed with the petition.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2020 20:16:33 :::HCHP 24. Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate General submits that once the police files report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C and Court supplies copy of the same .
to the accused in compliance to the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, then the objective behind such supply is to make the accused aware of the prosecution laws against him.
5. Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate General further submits that after framing of charges and recording of statements of witnesses, Court supply free copy of such statements to the accused. The purpose behind supplying free copy is that the accused is not condemned unheard and he has all material for ready reference.
6. At this stage, Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to handover 173(2) report to the Court. He submits that usually, the copy of the documents handed over by Court(s) to the accused are either faded or not legible.
He further submits that the copy of documents received by him are over-written by various people and in case he files the same, the Registry will raise objections about its admissibility. The contention of Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore is also equally right.
7. Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General submits that in case the petitioner hands over the copies of evidence and report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C to the Court, then there is no assurance that the accused or anybody on his behalf has not taken out that document, which was unsuitable to him. Learned Additional Advocate General further states that in case such documents are filed alongwith the petition, it will lend assurance about its correctness and in case of any tempering, the accountability can be fixed. He further contends that it will afford them an opportunity to counter such documents in case of any lapses. The prayer of Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate General is genuine, bonafide and practical.
::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2020 20:16:33 :::HCHP 38. During this Covid-19 pandemic, every time the police officers are called to this court alongwith case files. It is likely to put such officers at the risk of .
contacting Covid-19 disease. Be that as it may, the purpose of 207 Cr.PC and subsequent supply of evidence to the accused is to enable him to base his bail petition and other such documents. In the present case, learned counsel does not deny that he never received such documents.
9. Confronted with this, Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition annexing all documents, which he may rely upon.
10. Given above, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition annexing those documents, which the petitioner may rely upon for the purpose of bail. It is clarified that even if such documents are faded or are not properly legible, still the Registry shall not raise any objection on that respect and shall list the same, as it is.
11. Thus, the petition is closed with the above observations. All pending applications, if any, stand closed.
(Anoop Chitkara), Judge.
14th December, 2020 (mamta) ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2020 20:16:33 :::HCHP