Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kishori Lal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 15 March, 2019
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 320 of 2019 Decided on: 15th March, 2019 Kishori Lal ....Petitioner .
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Lakshay Parihar, Advocate.
For the respondent/State: Mr. S.C. Sharma, P.K. Bhatti and Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General.
______________________________________________________________________ Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).
The present bail application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 40 of 2019, dated 22.02.2019, under Sections 354A, 506 IPC, Section 67A IT Act and Sections 8 & 12 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Badsar, District Hamirpur, 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 resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He is joining and co-operating in the investigation, so he may be released on bail.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 22:03:39 :::HCHP 23. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 22.02.2019 the complainant (mother of the prosecutrix) moved a complaint to the police wherein she contended that her daughter .
(prosecutrix), who is 15 years old, studies in 8th standard. The complainant further stated that on 20.02.2019, when she was managing the bedding of the prosecutrix, she found a mobile phone, which was not given to her by them. When the phone was switched on and looked into, it was having obscene talk of a girl and a man. The mobile was having phone number 7807516715. The complainant divulged this fact to her husband and then he also heard the obscene talks stored in the mobile and the voice of the man was found to be that of the petitioner. The prosecutrix was asked about the cell phone, so she disclosed that on 05.02.2019 the petitioner gave that cell phone to her and also told to talk to him regularly. The prosecutrix further divulged that the petitioner used to give her toffees. On 02.02.2019 the petitioner tried to pull the prosecutrix in a shop, but somehow she escaped from his clutches. The petitioner had loaded a vulgar video in the mobile and when the prosecutrix saw it, she deleted the same. The petitioner used to call the petitioner from his mobile number 9817699914 and he asked the prosecutrix that he wants to meet her alone. The matter was reported to Smt. Anjana Sharma, Member, Mahila Mandal, but the wife of the petitioner told that the petitioner could have done this under the influence of liquor. The petitioner also ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 22:03:39 :::HCHP 3 threatened the prosecutrix. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued.
The prosecutrix was medically examined and the mobile phone having .
number 7807516715 was taken into possession, which was sent for examination to RFSL, Dharamshala. Police prepared the spot map and the spot was photographed. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The police procured records qua the date of birth of the prosecutrix. The petitioner, in order to avoid his arrest, absconded, but on 09.03.2019 he participated in the investigation. The police took into possession the mobile phone of the petitioner, having phone number 9817699914, and the same has been sent for analysis. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application may 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 is joining and co-operating in the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not at all required. He has also argued that by keeping the petitioner behind the bars no fruitful purpose will be served. The petitioner is resident of the place and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. Conversely, the ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 22:03:39 :::HCHP 4 learned Additional Advocate General has argued that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. The petitioner has committed .
a serious offence and there is anger in the society, thus it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.
6. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is in advance stage of his life, he is resident of the place and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, he is joining and co-operating in the investigation and considering the fact that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars, so the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 40 of 2019, dated 22.02.2019, under Sections 354A, 506 IPC, Section 67A IT Act and Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Badsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of `25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:
(i) That the petitioner will join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 22:03:39 :::HCHP 5
(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.
7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.
Copy dasti.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
15th March, 2019 Judge
(virender)
::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 22:03:39 :::HCHP