Ranchit @ Minku vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 November, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 1361 of 2017
Date of Decision No.17.11.2017
__

.
Ranchit @ Minku …….. Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh …..Respondent.

__
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1

For the petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. M.L.Chauhan, Additional Advocate
General.
__

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant petition filed under Section 439 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, a prayer has been made on

behalf of bail petitioner for grant of bail in FIR No. 104 of 2017,

dated 15.6.2017, registered under Sections 452, 376, 506 of

IPC, at Police Station, Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Sequel to order dated 27.10.2017 and 3.11.2017,

ASI Arjun Singh, Police Station, Amb, District Una, H.P, has come

present in court alongwith the record. Mr. Chauhan, learned

Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status

report, dated 17.11.2017, prepared on the basis of the

investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency.

1

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

18/11/2017 23:03:42 :::HCHP
2

3. Record/Status report, reveals that aforesaid FIR

came to be registered against the bail petitioner at the behest of

the prosecutrix, who alleged that in the intervening night of

.

14/15th June, 2017, bail petitioner entered her room at around

4:15 AM and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her

against her wishes. As per the complainant, she is working as a

Vocational Teacher since September, 2016 at Senior Secondary

School, Diyara and since February, 2017 she has been residing

in the house owned and possessed by Sh. Shubash Chand, R/o

village Bhaira on rent, who happened to be the father of the

accused. As per prosecutrix, on 14th June, 2017, she after having

taken dinner with the family of the bail petitioner came to her

room at around 10:00 PM, but unfortunately forgot to bolt the

door. Bail petitioner taking advantage of the omission on the

part of complainant/ prosecutrix to bolt the door, entered her

room in the wee hours and sexually assaulted her. On the basis

of aforesaid complaint, having been made by the prosecutrix,

formal FIR came to be registered against the bail petitioner on

15th June, 2017 and since then bail petitioner is in custody i.e.

for the last five months.

4. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned counsel, representing

the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to the status

report/record, vehemently contended that nothing has come

against the bail petitioner in the investigation as far as alleged

18/11/2017 23:03:42 :::HCHP
3

commission of the offences punishable under section 452, 376

and 506 of IPC is concerned and as such, he deserve to be

enlarged on bail. While specifically referring to the medical

.

evidence adduced on record by the investigating agency, Mr.

Sharma, contended that bare perusal of the same, suggests that

complainant/ prosecutrix was not sexually assaulted by the bail

petitioner and he has been falsely implicated at the behest of

the complainant/ prosecutrix. Mr. Sharma, further contended

that investigation of the case is complete and challan stands

filed in the competent court of law and as such, bail petitioner,

who is just 24 years old deserve to be enlarged on bail. Mr.

Sharma, further contended that in past no case has been

registered against the bail petitioner and he has very clean

record and there is no likelihood of his absconding from the trial.

5. Mr. M.L.Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate

General, while fairly conceding that challan stands filed in Court,

vehemently opposed aforesaid prayer for grant of bail made on

behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Chauhan, contended that evidence

adduced on record by the prosecution/investigating agency,

clearly suggest that bail petitioner sexually assaulted the

complainant/prosecutrix and as such, he is not entitled to be

released on bail. Mr. Chauhan, further contended that in case

bail petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may temper with the

18/11/2017 23:03:42 :::HCHP
4

evidence since he hails from that area and there is every

likelihood of his absconding from the trial.

6. I have heard learned counsel representing the

.

parties and have carefully gone through the record made

available.

7. This Court after having carefully perused the

material adduced on record by the investigating agency,

especially medical evidence i.e. DNA profile, sees substantial

force in the argument of learned counsel representing the bail

petitioner that there is no evidence available on record

indicative of the fact that bail petitioner sexually assaulted the

complainant/prosecutrix. Though, aforesaid aspect of the matter

is to be taken care and decided by the trial Court on the basis of

the evidence led on record by the prosecution, but this court

after having carefully perused the material available on record

sees no reason to allow the bail petitioner to incarcerate in jail

for indefinite period, especially when he has already suffered for

more than five months in jail. It is not in dispute that the challan

stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing is

required to be recovered from the bail petitioner. Moreover, bail

petitioner is local resident of area and his presence during the

trial can be easily secured by the investigating agency.

8. Leaving everything aside, guilt of accused is yet to

be proved by the prosecution by way of leading cogent and

18/11/2017 23:03:42 :::HCHP
5

convincing evidence and as such, freedom of bail petitioner

cannot be curtailed during the pendency of the trial, especially

when there is nothing on record from where it can be inferred

.

that it may be difficult for the investigating agency to secure

the presence of the bail petitioner during the trial.

9. Law with regard to grant of bail is now well settled.

Hon’ble apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus

State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694, while relying

upon its decision rendered by its Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh

Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, laid down

the following parameters for grant of bail:-

“111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be
provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are
clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to
provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect

because all circumstances and situations of future cannot
be clearly visualized for the grant or refusal of anticipatory
bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant

or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on
facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in

the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia’s case (supra)
that the High Court or the Court of Sessions to exercise
their jurisdiction under section 438 Cr.P.C. by a wise and

careful use of their discretion which by their long training
and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event,
this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to
respect and honour.

112. The following factors and parameters can be taken
into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:

18/11/2017 23:03:42 :::HCHP
6

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the
exact role of the accused must be properly
comprehended before arrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the
fact as to whether the accused has previously

.

undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court

in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from
justice;

(iv) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to
repeat similar or the other offences.

(v) Where the accusations have been made only
with the object of injuring or humiliating the
applicant by arresting him or her.

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly
in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large
number of people.

(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available

material against the accused very carefully. The
court must also clearly comprehend the exact role

of the accused in the case. The cases in which
accused is implicated with the help of sections 34
and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should
consider with even greater care and caution
because over implication in the cases is a matter of
common knowledge and concern;

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck
between two factors namely, no prejudice should be
caused to the free, fair and full investigation and

there should be prevention of harassment,
humiliation and unjustified detention of the
accused;

(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension
of tampering of the witness or apprehension of
threat to the complainant;

(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be
considered and it is only the element of
genuineness that shall have to be considered in the
matter of grant of bail and in the event of there
being some doubt as to the genuineness of the
prosecution, in the normal course of events, the
accused is entitled to an order of bail.”

(Emphasis supplied)

18/11/2017 23:03:42 :::HCHP
7

10. Hon’ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus

Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down

the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding

.

petition for bail:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had committed

the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing

of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(viii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and

(ix) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant
of bail.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, petitioner has

carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is

allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in

case FIR No.104 of 2017, dated 15.6.2017, under Sections 452,

376, 506 of IPC, registered at police Station, Amb, District Una,

Himachal Pradesh, on his furnishing personal bonds in the sum

of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the

satisfaction of learned trial Court, subject to following conditions:

18/11/2017 23:03:42 :::HCHP
8

(a) He shall make 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;

(b) He shall neither tamper with the prosecution
evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case
in any manner whatsoever;

(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or
promises 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

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without
the prior permission of the Court.

12. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty

or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the

investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for

cancellation of his bail.

13. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be

construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall

remain confined to the disposal of this application alone.

The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

Copy dasti.

(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge.

17th November, 2017
(shankar)

18/11/2017 23:03:42 :::HCHP

Leave a Comment

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