Sunil Kumar vs Unknown on 24 July, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) No. 719 2017
Decided on: 24th July, 2017

.

Sunil Kumar ….Petitioner.

Versus
…Respondent.

State of Himachal Pradesh.

Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.

For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. AG,
with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law
Officer.

SI Ram Nath, I.O. Police Station
Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P.

_
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. 182 of 2016, dated 05.07.2016,

under Sections 363, 366A, 376, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

(for short “IPC”) and Section 4 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”), registered at

Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P.

2. As per the petitioner, he is innocent and has been

falsely implicated in the present case. He is neither in a position to

1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

25/07/2017 23:57:46 :::HCHP
-2-

tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from

justice, so he may be released on bail.

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

.

03.12.2016 the prosecutrix (name withheld) reported the matter to

the police alleging that she is studying in 8th class, in Khokhan

School. The prosecutrix has further alleged that she received a call

on her mobile No. 96253-44840 from mobile No. 70188-09842 and

the person calling divulged his name as Shilu (the petitioner

herein). The petitioner told her that he wants to marry her and

thereafter the prosecutrix and the petitioner remained in talking

terms with each other. On 27.11.2016, when she alongwith her

sister went to bazaar, the petitioner telephoned her and he came in

a vehicle. He forcibly took them to Manikaran, where they stayed

there in a hotel where the petitioner committed sexual intercourse

with her. On 28th November, 2016, the petitioner dropped the

sister of the prosecutrix at Shamshi and he forcibly took the

prosecutrix to Jhiri. She was made to stay in a hotel at Jhiri for

two days, where also the petitioner committed sexual intercourse

with her. Thereafter, the petitioner went to Chandigarh and he

asked the petitioner to stay at Jhiri. On 02.12.2016 the

prosecutrix reached her home and on 03.12.2016 she narrated the

entire episode to her mother. The investigation in the case was

conducted and the accused was arrested and after completion of

the investigation, the challan was presented in the learned Trial

25/07/2017 23:57:46 :::HCHP
-3-

Court and the case is listed for consideration on charge on

09.08.2017. 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 taking into

consideration the medical of the prosecutrix and the fact that the

petitioner is a married man, he may be released on bail. He has

further argued that there is nothing to suggest the involvement of

the petitioner. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General

has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious offence and

he is directly responsible for taking the petitioner and keeping her

at different places, so the present is a fit case where the bail is

required to be dismissed.

5. I have gone through the rival contentions of the parties

and the police record in detail.

6. At this stage, taking into consideration the material,

which has come on record, allegations leveled against the

petitioner and the age of the prosecutrix, this Court finds that the

petitioner is in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence

and he is also in a position to flee from justice, thus the present is

not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner

on bail is required to be exercised in his favour.

7. The petition, which sans merit, deserves dismissal and

is accordingly disposed of. However, keeping in view the overall

25/07/2017 23:57:46 :::HCHP
-4-

aspects of the case and the request made by the learned counsel

for the petitioner seeking a direction to the learned Trial Court for

expeditious disposal of the matter, the learned Trail Court is

.

expected to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and

the parties are also expected to make every endeavour to assist the

learned Trail Court for speedy disposal of the case.

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)

24th July, 2017 Judge
(virender)

25/07/2017 23:57:46 :::HCHP

Leave a Comment

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