Gaurav vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 6 July, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA

CRMPM No.: 575 of 2017

.
Decided on: 06.07.2017.

Gaurav ….Petitioner.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kochhar and Mr. Vivek
r Sharma, Advocates.

For the respondent : Mr. Vikram Thakur, Dy. AG.

: SI Radhey Shyam, PS Sadar,
Shimla, is present a/w records of
the case.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition filed under Section 439

of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter

referred to ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short), the petitioner has prayed

for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 148 of

2016, dated 08.07.2016, registered at Police Station

Sadar, Shimla, under Sections 376 (i), 323, 342, 504 and

506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’

for short) and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

1

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

07/07/2017 23:59:02 :::HCHP
2

2. The petitioner is stated to be in custody since

09.07.2016. FIR stands lodged on the basis of a

.

complaint so filed by prosecutrix wherein it was stated

that she was a student of Shivalik Institute of Nursing at

Bhattakufar and was a resident of Ghodasarai, Card

Road, Shimla. As per the complainant, the accused and

the prosecutrix used to study in same school up to class

10th. On 05.07.2016, at around 10:00 a.m., accused

telephonically called her on the pretext that he wanted to

go with her to Tara Devi temple. Accused met her at old

READ  Sahajan Molla-vs-State And Anr. on 15 March, 2000

bus stand and thereafter, they took a taxi. Further as per

prosecutrix, when the taxi reached near Petrol Pump

towards Solan side, accused told the prosecutrix that he

wanted to talk with her for some time and thereafter they

shall proceed for temple. On said pretext, accused took

her to his room. In the room, accused took out a bottle of

‘Beer’ from the bag and started consuming the same.

Accused while checking the mobile of the prosecutrix saw

a photograph of a boy and on this, he started abusing

her both verbally and physically. In the said process,

prosecutrix suffered injuries and in order to save herself,

07/07/2017 23:59:02 :::HCHP
3

she ran away towards the bathroom. In the meanwhile,

accused took out a knife and one other weapon from his

.

bag and threatened to kill both himself as well as the

prosecutrix. As per the prosecutrix, in the course of all

this, accused also sexually molested her, who somehow

saved herself and ran away from the spot and

subsequently narrated the incident to her elder sister

was lodged.

r to
Sana and her parents, pursuant to which, the complaint

3. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Counsel for the

petitioner has submitted that statements of prosecutrix

as well as her sister and prosecutrix stand recorded by

the learned trial Court on 01.07.2017 and 03.07.2017

respectively and that perusal of same demonstrates that

the prosecutrix has stated in the Court that accused had

not sexually assaulted her. Mr. Kochhar while referring

to the statements of the parents and sister of the

prosecutrix so recorded in the Court has stated that none

READ  Dharmeshbhai Manabhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 28 July, 2017

of them have supported the case of the prosecution. Mr.

Kochhar has further submitted that a false story was

concocted to frame the accused which stood established

07/07/2017 23:59:02 :::HCHP
4

from the fact that neither the prosecutrix nor the family

members of the prosecutrix have supported the case of

.

prosecution. Accordingly, he prayed that the present

petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Vikram Thakur,

learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the

statement of Investigating Officer was yet to be recorded

and therefore, this Court may not accede to the request

of the petitioner and the present petition be dismissed.

5. Whether or not the accused is guilty of offence

with which he is charged, is a matter to be adjudicated

upon by the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence

which the prosecution shall produce before the said

Court. At this stage, all this Court has to see is as to

whether any purpose will be served by retaining the

accused in custody or not.

6. Taking into consideration the fact that the

petitioner is in custody since 09.07.2016 and further that

the statement of the prosecutrix as well as her family

members stand recorded before the learned trial Court

and apparently they do not support the case of the

07/07/2017 23:59:02 :::HCHP
5

prosecution, therefore, in my considered view, no

purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner/accused

.

in custody. Accordingly, this application is allowed and

the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his

furnishing personal bond to the tune of ` 50,000/- with

READ  Narayan Ganesh Dastane vs Sucheta Narayan Dastane on 19 March, 1975

one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of

learned trial Court subject to the following conditions.

i)

Petitioner shall made himself available for the purpose of
interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial

Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented

by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance
by filing appropriate application;

ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor
hamper the investigation of the case in any manner

whatsoever.

iii) He shall not 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 Court or

the Police Officer; and

iv) He shall not leave the territory of India without prior

permission of the Court.

7. It is clarified that findings which have been

returned by this Court while deciding this petition are

only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail

application and learned trial Court shall not be

07/07/2017 23:59:02 :::HCHP
6

influenced by any of the findings so returned by this

Court in the adjudication of this petition during the trial

.

of the case. It is further clarified that in case the

petitioner does not complies with the conditions which

have been imposed upon him while granting the present

bail, the State shall be at liberty to approach this Court

for the cancellation of the bail. The petition stands

disposed of in the above terms.

Copy dasti.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
July 06, 2017

(narender)

07/07/2017 23:59:02 :::HCHP

Leave a Comment

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