Dev Raj vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 December, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP (M) No.1388 of 2017.

Decided on: 16th December, 2017.

.

Dev Raj …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. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, Addl. Advocate
General.

SI Manmohan Singh, Police Station
r Sarkaghat, District Mandi, present in
person.

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge (oral).

The present bail application has been moved by the petitioner

under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on

bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 237 of 2017, dated

02.11.2017, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short

IPC”), registered at Police Station, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.

2. As per the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in

the present case. He is resident of the place and neither in a position to

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

justice, thus he may be released on bail.

1

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

16/12/2017 23:08:26 :::HCHP
2

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

2.11.2017, prosecutrix made a complaint against the petitioner alleging

therein that on 11.7.2011, at about 11:00 AM, when the prosecutrix was

.

alone at home and her husband was out of station for his work of

carpenter, petitioner (accused) came to her house and forcibly committed

rape and also threatened her not to disclose this fact to anyone. The

petitioner black mailed the prosecutrix that if she will disclose this fact to

anyone, then he will open the nude picture of the prosecutrix to the

general public. On 13.11.2015, the petitioner again came to the house of

prosecutrix in the intoxicated state of mind and started abusing to her

husband and asked that your wife is under my control. Thereafter, the

prosecutrix alongwith her husband reported the matter to the police. The

statements of the witnesses were also recorded. Lastly, the prosecution

has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be rejected.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone

through the record, including the police report, carefully.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has

argued that there is a delay in lodging the FIR and infact, the petitioner

is innocent and is joining and co-operating in the investigation, as and

when required. He has also argued that by keeping the petitioner behind

the bars, no fruitful purpose will be served. He has further argued that

the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution

16/12/2017 23:08:26 :::HCHP
3

evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on

bail. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General has

argued that taking into consideration the heinousness of the crime, the

.

bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

6. After taking into consideration the facts, which has come on

record that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation

and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence

nor in a position to flee from justice, as the incidence is of the year 2015

and till date, he has not tampered with the prosecution evidence neither

flee from justice and now the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the

investigation, this Court finds that the present is a fit case, where the

judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his

arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Under these

circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in the

event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 237 of 2017, dated 02.11.2017, under

Section 376 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Sarkaghat, District Mandi,

H.P., on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of `25,000/- (rupees

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

satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to

the following conditions:

i. That the petitioner will join investigation of
case as and when called for by the
Investigating Officer in accordance with law.
ii. That the petitioner will not leave India without
prior permission of the Court.

16/12/2017 23:08:26 :::HCHP
4

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. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

Copy dasti.

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)

th
16 December, 2017 Judge
(CS)

16/12/2017 23:08:26 :::HCHP

Leave a Comment

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