Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shiv Lal And Etc. vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 27 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001CRILJ3205
Author: M.R. Verma
Bench: M.R. Verma
ORDER M.R. Verma, J.
1. Since all these three petitions for grant of anticipatory bail arise out of the same First Information Report and are based on the same grounds, therefore, are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The accused/petitioners (hereafter referred to as 'accused') apprehend their arrest in a case FIR. No. 96/2000 dated March 14, 2000 under Sections 147/149/366/323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act registered on the basis of a statement under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code made by Sumna. The accused claim that the case registered against them is false and that they are alleged to have abducted one Sumna aged more than 18 years and that no recovery is to be made from them.
3. The case of the prosecution against the accused, in brief, is that on March 14, 2000 when the prosecutrix Sumna, along with her cousin Sunita, was returning home after taking exams, in Science paper from Government Senior Sectionndary School Hatgrarh at about 12.00 noon on the way they met the accused and their co-accused, the prosecutrix was forcibly put in a van and was removed towards Baggi so that her marriage could be solmenised with accused Shiv Lal. At the time of such removal accused Dharampal was having 'Chhura' and as and when prosecutrix would try to raise hue and cry, accused Chhotu would gag her mouth and Dharampal would threaten her to be killed in case of making any noise. When they reached at Baggi, because of the matter having come to the knowledge of the masses, the prosecutrix was dropped from the vehicle and the accused bolted away. Subsequently, the van in which the prosecutrix was being removed and was not having any number plate etc. while in movement, was recovered and the wearing apparels etc. meant for bride and few other Articlecles including a Khukhari, question paper and Geometry box of the prosecutrix were found in the van. Hence the case.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the record.
5. A perusal of the record reveals that the statement of the prosecutrix reveals the commission of the aforesaid offences by the accused and their co-accused one of whom is stated to have absconded and others are stated to be in custody. Evidently, it is not a case which may be treated to have come into being on the basis of any rivalry and just to settle the scores or vendetta against the accused. On the contrary, the offences, par-ticularly the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, alleged to have been committed by the accused are of serious and heinous nature. In such cases it is neither lawful nor proper to refuse an opportunity to the police to carry out substantial and effective interrogation of the accused.
6. It was contended for the accused that the prosecutrix is more than 18 years of age and in the facts and circumstances of the case, she appears to be a consenting party in eloping with the accused persons and to marry accused Shiv Lal. There is nothing on the record so far which may lend even a little credibility to the aforesaid contentions nor it is inferable from the facts and circumstances of the case as have come on the record.
7. It emerges from the records that during the period when the accused remained on interim bail, they threatened the father of the prosecutrix either to withdraw the case or face dire consequences. It is suggestive of the fact that the accused if enlarged on bail at this stage of investigation they may tamper with the prosecution evidence.
8. In view of the above, I do not find the accused entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. As a consequence, these applications merit dismissal and are accordingly dismissed.