-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 theInvestigating 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
