Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dev Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 April, 2017
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPs(M) No. 420 & 421 of 2017 Decided on: 25th April, 2017
1. Cr.MP(M) No. 420 of 2017:
Dev Kumar ....Petitioner
.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
2. Cr.MP(M) No. 421 of 2017:
Ram Sagar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner(s): Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate. For the respondent/State: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law r Officer.
______________________________________________________________________ Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).
The present bail applications have been maintained by the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release in case FIR No. 48 of 2016, dated 13.08.2016, under Sections 363, 366A, 342 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and Section 18 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Bhabanagar, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh.
2. As per the petitioners, they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are residents of the place and are not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and also not in a position to flee from justice, so they may be released on bail.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2017 23:58:29 :::HCHP 23. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, on 13.08.2016, the police acting on a tip off that some persons forcibly taken a girl in a white coloured Eon from Shalotu to old Tapri, intercepted the same vehicle before 3-4 kilometers from village .
Katgaon. On suspicion, the persons sitting in the vehicle were taken to Tapri, where Smt. Anupama wife of Shri Nandesh Kumar moved a complaint before the police, which was sent to the police station, wherein it is alleged that victim/prosecutrix, who is her relative, was staying with her at Sholtu. The victim went to bring milk from Tolomchey, but she did not return for a considerable time.
Subsequently, her nanad telephoned her and disclosed that the victim has been taken forcibly in a white coloured Eon car by two persons.
She has further disclosed that the victim jumped out of the said vehicle and she is in Tapri. The husband of the complainant brought the victim to the house. The victim disclosed that two persons have abducted her and took her towards old Tapri. As per the victim, she jumped out of the vehicle and while jumping she could only read number of vehicle as HP 51 T. The victim also sustained injuries in her hand and foot. The persons, who allegedly abducted the victim, were under the influence of liquor. Police investigated the matter and during the course of investigation it was unearthed that the petitioners have taken the victim forcibly. On the identification of the victim, photographs of the spot of occurrence were taken. The victim was medically examined and vehicle, i.e., HP51(T)-0767, which was allegedly used by the petitioners in the crime was taken into possession ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2017 23:58:29 :::HCHP 3 by the police. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The petitioners were arrested and FIR was registered. Statement of the victim was also got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judcial Magistrate. Date .
of birth of the victim was also ascertained from her school and as per that the victim was twelve years and three months at the time of occurrence. Lastly, prosecution has prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners may be dismissed.
4. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioners are innocent. The petitioners are the residents of the place and are not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and flee from justice. He has further argued that the charge is only framed under Section 366 and not under Section 366A IPC.
Lastly, he has argued that no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioners have committed serious crime and in case they are enlarged on bail they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioners may be dismissed.
5. I have gone through the rival contentions of the parties and the police report in detail.
6. At this stage, taking into consideration the facts that the investigation in the case in hand stands completed, the petitioners are residents of the place and are not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence or flee from justice and also keeping in view the ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2017 23:58:29 :::HCHP 4 age of the petitioners, this Court finds that no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars for an unlimited period. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing them at this moment, the present is a fit case where .
the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be exercised in their favour. Therefore, it is ordered that the petitioners be released forthwith on bail, on their furnishing personal bond to the tune of `25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court, in case FIR No. 48 of 2016, dated 13.08.2016, under Sections 363, 366A, 342 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 18 of POCSO Act, registered at Police State Bhabanagar, District Kinnaur, H.P. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:
(i) That the petitioners will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required.
(ii) That the petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
(iii) That the petitioners 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.
7. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of.
Copy dasti
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
25th April, 2017 Judge
(virender)
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2017 23:58:29 :::HCHP