Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ajay Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 30 May, 2019
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPs(M) No. 796 & 797 of 2019 Decided on: 30th May, 2019
1. Cr.MP(M) No. 796 of 2019:
.
Ajay Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
2. Cr.MP(M) No. 797 of 2019:
Roshan Lal ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. In both the petitions:
For the petitioner(s): r Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate.
For the respondent/State: Mr. S.C. Sharma, Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans And Mr. P.K. Bhatti, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General.
______________________________________________________________________ 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. 64 of 2018, dated 30.08.2018, under Sections 363, 366A, 376D, 506 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P.
2. As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are residents of the place and neither in a position to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2019 00:15:24 :::HCHP 2tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping them behind the bars for an unlimited period, so they may be released on bail.
.
3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 03.08.2018 the complainant, father of the prosecutrix, moved a complaint to the police, wherein it is alleged that on 27.08.2018, at about 12:00 noon, the prosecutrix (name withheld), who is his daughter came to Nirmand market for purchasing medicines, but she did not return. On 29.08.2019 the prosecutrix returned home and she divulged that Ajay (one of the petitioners herein) threatened to kill the complainant. Petitioner Ajay asked the prosecutrix to come to him and he sent a vehicle. Petitioner Ajay took the prosecutrix in a hotel in Rampur, where he sexually assaulted her. On the subsequent day petitioner Ajay took the prosecutrix to Bus Stand Rampur and he told one Satish to drop the prosecutrix at her village. There was one Roshan Lal in the vehicle (another petitioner herein) and they drove the vehicle towards Taklech. When the prosecutrix raised concerned why they are going towards Taklech, they threatened her that she could be thrown in the river. Both these persons also sexually molested the prosecutrix. Thereafter said Satish took the prosecutrix to his room and he sexually molested her and also gave beatings to her. The petitioners and accused Satish Verma threatened the prosecutrix to ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2019 00:15:24 :::HCHP 3 eliminate her family. On the basis of the complaint, police registered a case and investigation ensued. The prosecutrix was medically examined. On 31.08.2018 the petitioners herein were arrested. Police .
made the relevant recoveries and prepared the spot map. Police also arrested co-accused Satish. Scientific samples were sent to SFSL, Junga, for analysis. After the conclusion of the investigation challan stands presented in the Court and some of the prosecution witnesses have also been examined in the case. Now the case is listed for examination of remaining prosecution witnesses on 28.06.2019.
Lastly, it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed, as the petitioners were found involved in a serious offence and in case they are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. Therefore, the bail applications of the petitioners may be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, nor in a position to flee from justice, as they are residents of the place, and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping them behind the bars for an ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2019 00:15:24 :::HCHP 4 unlimited period, so they may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners were found involved in serious offence and in case they are enlarged on .
bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has further argued that the petitioners alongwith other accused committed heinous crime, so at this stage, the bail applications of the petitioners may be dismissed.
6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. r He has further argued that the petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may be enlarged on bail.
7. At this stage, after carefully considering the fact that petitioners cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, some of the prosecution witnesses have already been examined, considering the age of the petitioners and also that of the prosecutrix, and the facts that the petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as they are residents of the place, this Court finds that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars for an unlimited period and the ends of justice will only be met in case they are enlarged on bail. Thus, ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2019 00:15:24 :::HCHP 5 the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be exercised in their favour.
Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and it is ordered that the .
petitioners, who have been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 64 of 2018, dated 30.08.2018, under Sections 363, 366A, 376D, 506 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/-
(rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:
(i) That the petitioners will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities 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.
8. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of.
Copy dasti.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
30th May, 2019 Judge
(virender)
::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2019 00:15:24 :::HCHP