vs Unknown on 29 May, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP (M) No. 561 of 2017
Decided on: 29th May, 2017

.

Ravinder Singh alias Ravi Kumar ….Petitioner.

Versus
…Respondent.

State of Himachal Pradesh.

Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate.

For the respondent :

Mr. Virender K. Verma, Addl. AG,
with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy.

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. 375 of 2016, dated 22.11.2016,

under Sections 452 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), registered at Police Station Paonta

Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.

2. As per the petitioner, he 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, so he may be released on bail.

<span “>1

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, on

22.11.2016, the complainant, who is the husband of the

prosecutrix (name withheld), through a written complaint, reported

to the police that on 21.11.2016 around 01:30 p.m., when his wife

(prosecutrix) and son were in the house, the petitioner forcibly

entered the house and committed rape on the prosecutrix.

Thereafter, the petitioner fled away from the spot. When the

complainant reached his house, the prosecutrix narrated the

occurrence to him. On the subsequent morning, the complainant

reported the matter to the police. On the complaint of the

complainant, police registered an FIR and started investigation.

The police got conducted the medically examination of the

prosecutrix. The petitioner was arrested on 22.11.2016 and he

was also medically examined. The police also completed all the

codal formalities. As per the prosecution, in case the petitioner is

enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence.

Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application of the

petitioner may be dismissed.

4. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely

implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the

petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to

tamper with the prosecution evidence nor to flee from justice. He

has prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General, has argued

that the petitioner has committed a very serious crime and there

are chances that in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper

.

with the prosecution evidence and flee from justice. Lastly, he has

prayed that the bail application of the petitioner 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 age of the

petitioner, the age of the prosecutrix, the place where the offence

has been committed and presence of the small child at the place of

occurrence and also the fact that the petitioner, in case enlarged

on bail, is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution

evidence and he is not in a position to flee from justice, this Court

finds that the interests of justice would be met in case the

petitioner, who is behind the bars since long, is released on bail.

This Court also finds that no fruitful purpose will be served by

keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period,

therefore, 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 present petition is allowed and it is

ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police of

Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, in connection to FIR

No. 375 of 2016, dated 22.11.2016, under Sections 452 and 376

IPC, he shall be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal

bond in the sum of `50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one

surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.

The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:

.

(i) That the petitioner will appear before the
learned Trial Court 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.

7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

Copy dasti.

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)

29th May, 2017 Judge
(virender)
Cr. MP (M) No.1575 of 2016

31/05/2017 00:00:49 :::HCHP

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *