Prince Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 27 November, 2017

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) No. 1418 of 2017
Decided on: 27th November, 2017

.

Prince Kumar ….Petitioner.

Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. …Respondent.

Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner: Mr. Anoop Chitkara and Mrs.

Sheetal Vyas, Advocates.

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

r Sub Inspector Bishamber Dass,

Police Station Barsar, District
Hamirpur, 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. 17 of 2017, dated 03.02.2017,

under Section 376(1) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter

referred to as “IPC”), registered at Police Station Barsar, District

Hamirpur, 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

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

28/11/2017 23:35:13 :::HCHP
-2-

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.

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

.

03.02.2017 the prosecutrix made a complaint to the police alleging

that during the year 2014 when she was doing B.Ed. from Deen

Dayal B.Ed College, Mahrey, Ms. Seema Sharma, who was teacher

in the same college, got her engaged with the petitioner and after

the consent of both the families on 02.06.2015 shagun etc. were

exchanged and marriage was fixed on 08.12.2015. As per the

prosecutrix, on 05.06.2015, the mother of the petitioner called her

to meet the petitioner, as he has to go in 3-4 days. On being

insisted, the prosecutrix went in a room to talk with the petitioner

and the petitioner gave her Patanjali juice. After consuming the

juice, she felt giddiness. When she regained consciousness, her

clothes were on a side and the petitioner said her not to make

noise and he will marry her. The petitioner also said that he was

under fear of loosing her, so he did so. Thereafter, the petitioner

dropped her home. On 11.09.2015, the petitioner took her to his

home and there also he committed forcible sexual intercourse with

the prosecutrix. On 11.10.2015, the parents of the petitioner

declined to marry the prosecutrix and the petitioner. As the

petitioner was abroad, the prosecutrix made the complaint on

23.01.2016, but the petitioner occultly married someone else. As

28/11/2017 23:35:13 :::HCHP
-3-

per the prosecutrix, the petitioner on the pretext of marrying her,

committed sexual intercourse with her. On the basis of the

complaint, so filed by the prosecutrix, police machinery was set

.

into motion, the prosecutrix was medically examined. The spot

map was prepared and the statement of the prosecutrix was

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The clothes of the prosecutrix,

which were taken into possession by the police, were sent for

forensic examination. As per the information received from

Regional Passport Office, Shimla, on 20.20.2017 the petitioner

returned from Spain and on 21.10.2017 he was arrested.

r The

petitioner was also medically examined. As per the police, the

petitioner is very clever person. The challan is yet to be presented

in the Court. Lastly, it has been prayed that in case the petitioner

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

and may also flee from justice. As the petitioner has committed

serious crime, he may not be enlarged on bail and the application

may be dismissed.

4. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

argued that the petitioner is innocent and he is neither in a

position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position

to flee from justice. He has further argued that the petitioner is

resident of the place. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate

General, has argued that taking into consideration the fact that the

28/11/2017 23:35:13 :::HCHP
-4-

petitioner has committed a serious offence and in case he is

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

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 facts that

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 and also the fact that no fruitful purpose will be

served by keeping in petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited

period, this Court finds that 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 Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., in case FIR

No. 17 of 2017, dated 03.02.2017, under Section 376(1) IPC,

registered at Police Station Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., he

shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his

furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- (rupees twenty

five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the

satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to

the following conditions:

28/11/2017 23:35:13 :::HCHP
-5-

(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.

27th November, 2017
(virender)
r to (Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
Judge

28/11/2017 23:35:13 :::HCHP

Leave a Comment

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