Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bali Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 24 October, 2019
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1878 of 2019 Decided on: 24th October, 2019 .
Bali Ram ....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. R.L. Chaudhary and Mr. H.R. sidhu, Advocate.
For the respondent/State: Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans and Mr. P.K. Bhatti, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General.
SI Pardeep Kumar, Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. ______________________________________________________________________ Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).
The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 90 of 2018, dated 01.05.2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B IPC and Sections 4 and 17 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.
2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of District Mandi and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2019 20:25:26 :::HCHP 2fruitful 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 .
01.05.2018 complainant Shri Ramesh Kumar (father of the prosecutrix) made a written complaint to the police and alleged that on 30.04.2018, at about 06:00 p.m., the prosecutrix (name withheld) eloped with one Som Dutt, who is son of Bali Ram (petitioner herein). The complainant has further alleged that Som Dutt and the prosecutrix also took some cash and valuables from the house of Shri Chint Ram. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued.
Police obtained the records qua the date of birth of the prosecutrix and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The prosecutrix, as per the birth records, was found to be minor. During the course of investigation, the complainant filed an affidavit stating that cash and valuables, which were earlier reported by him to be taken away by Som Dutt and the prosecutrix, have been found in the house. Police tracked and traced the cell phone location of the prosecutrix and it was found at Lahul & Spiti. On 07.09.2019 the prosecutrix and accused Som Dutt were found and they were brought to Sarkaghat for identification. The prosecutrix divulged that accused Som Dutt and she used to live as husband and wife and she has pregnancy of four months. The prosecutrix refused to get herself medically examined. Accused Som Dutt divulged that he wanted to marry the ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2019 20:25:26 :::HCHP 3 prosecutrix, but as she was minor the marriage could not be solemnized and it was agreed to solemnize marriage after two years. It was unearthed that accused Som Dutt took the prosecutrix with him and made her to live .
with him for more than one and half years as his wife. On 08.09.2019 accused Som Dutt was arrested and during the course of further investigation it was found that Bali Ram (father of accused Som Dutt and petitioner herein) helped in taking away the prosecutrix. On 16.09.2019 the petitioner was arrested and now the investigation in the instant case is complete. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the crime. There is possibility that in case at this stage the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his application be dismissed.
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 report, carefully.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that petitioner is permanent resident of District Mandi and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2019 20:25:26 :::HCHP 4 especially when investigation is complete and challan is likely to be presented in the learned Trial Court soon. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found .
actively involved in the crime as he helped accused Som Dutt in taking away the prosecutrix, 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, especially when investigation is complete, custody of the petitioner not required by the police and the challan is likely to be presented in the learned Trial Court soon, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
7. At this stage, considering the role of the petitioner in the alleged offence, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have occurred, the fact that the petitioner is permanent resident of District Mandi and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, investigation in the case is complete, the custody of the petitioner is not required by the police, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, if so granted, considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage and also the fact that the petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2019 20:25:26 :::HCHP 5 cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so 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. 90 of 2018, dated 01.05.2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B IPC and Sections 4 and 17 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- (rupees twenty five 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)
24th October, 2019 Judge
(virender)
::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2019 20:25:26 :::HCHP