Amarjit Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 1 January, 2018

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) No. 1572 of 2017
Decided on: 1st January, 2018

.

Amarjit Singh ….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. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. AG.

ASI Subhash Chand, I.O. P.S.
Sadar, District Hamirpur, H.P.

__

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge (oral).

The present bail application has been maintained by

the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

seeking his release in case FIR No. 333 of 2017, dated 22.12.2017,

under Section 328 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter

referred to as “the IPC”), registered at Police Station Sadar, 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

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.

1

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

02/01/2018 23:26:12 :::HCHP
-2-

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

22.12.2017 police received an FIR, through post, from SP Office,

Ambala City, wherein the prosecutrix, who is resident of Ambala

.

(Haryana), alleged that in March, 2016, she came to Hamirpur,

H.P., in connection with her job and she came in contact with the

petitioner, as the petitioner also used to work in the same

company. The petitioner asked the prosecutrix to come to his

house to meet his parents and when she went to his house his

parents were not there. When the prosecutrix inquired about the

parents of the petitioner, he told her that they had gone to a

temple. The petitioner made the prosecutrix to drink cold drink

and after consuming the same she felt giddiness and lost her

consciousness. When the prosecutrix woke up, she found herself

naked and the petitioner told her he had sexual intercourse with

her, made her MMS and also clicked her obscene photos.

Thereafter, the petitioner time and again sexually assaulted the

prosecutrix forcibly and also threatened her. When the prosecutrix

divulged the same to the parents of the petitioner, they initially

agreed for her marriage with the petitioner, but they did not.

Lastly, the prosecutrix disclosed all the facts to her parents and

her parents also talked with the parents of the petitioner. The

parents of the petitioner again agreed for the marriage of the

petitioner with the prosecutrix and during November, 2017, the

02/01/2018 23:26:12 :::HCHP
-3-

petitioner came to Ambala for attending marriage ceremony in

prosecutrix’s relation and there also he sexually assaulted the

prosecutrix. Thereafter, the petitioner refused to marry the

.

prosecutrix and also threatened her. The petitioner threatened to

upload the obscene photos and MMS on internet. On the basis of

the complaint, so made by the prosecutrix, an FIR was registered

under Sections 376, 328, 120(B), 506 IPC and Section 67 of the IT

Act in Ambala and the same was transferred to Police Station

Sadar, District Hamirpur, H.P. through post. On the basis of the

FIR so received from Amabala, police investigation ensued.

r The

statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161

Cr.P.C. and she was medically examined. At the instance of the

prosecutrix, spot map was prepared and her statement under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Magistrate. As per the

prosecutrix, in her statement made under Sections 161 and 164

Cr.P.C., the petitioner has married her on 26.07.2016 and in police

investigation it was found to be true. All the record qua the

marriage of the prosecutrix with the petitioner was taken into

possession. The prosecutrix has further divulged that the

petitioner had not prepared any MMS or clicked her obscene

photos, thus Sections 120B, 506 IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act

were deleted from the FIR. As per the prosecution, the

02/01/2018 23:26:12 :::HCHP
-4-

investigation is at the initial stages and the petition 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, learned Deputy Advocate

General has argued that taking into consideration the fact that the

petitioner has committed a heinous crime, the 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 it

has come in the investigation that the prosecutrix and the

petitioner have married and there is marriage certificate to this

effect and also keeping in view the age of the prosecutrix and the

material, which has come on record, 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 be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case

FIR No. 333 of 2017, dated 22.12.2017, under Sections 328 and

376 IPC, Police Station Sadar, District Hamirpur, H.P., on his

02/01/2018 23:26:12 :::HCHP
-5-

furnishing personal bond to the tune of `20,000/- (rupees twenty

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 the
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.

(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.

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
1st January, 2018 Judge
(virender)

02/01/2018 23:26:12 :::HCHP

Leave a Comment

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