Rajesh Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 15 May, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 502 of 2017
Decided on: 15th May, 2017

Rajesh 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: Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate.

For the respondent/State: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Deputy Advocate
General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law
Officer.

ASI Naresh Kumar, Police Station
Shahpur, District Kangra, 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 for

releasing him on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 73 of

2017, dated 19.04.2017, registered under Sections 376 and 506 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC“), Police Station Shahpur,

District Kangra, H.P.

2. As per the learned counsel for 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.

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

19.04.2017, the prosecutrix (name withheld) alongwith her mother,

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

15/05/2017 23:57:05 :::HCHP
2

Smt. Lalita Devi, filed a written complaint against the petitioner

wherein it was alleged by the prosecutrix that she and the petitioner

had a love affair. The petitioner, on the pretext of marrying the

prosecutrix, established sexual relations with her for four years.

.

However, the petitioner did not marry her and engaged himself with

another girl. The prosecutrix has further alleged that the petitioner

told her to keep silent and take some money for keeping mum. Police,

on the basis of the complaint filed by the prosecutrix, investigated the

matter. The prosecutrix was got medically examined. Statement of the

prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she

reiterated the contents of the complaint and alleged that the petitioner

also intimidated her with dire consequences. Police prepared the spot

map and photographs of the room of the prosecutrix were also taken.

Statements of the witnesses, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., were also

recorded. The petitioner was also medically examined and his

underwear and vest were taken into possession. The samples of nails,

pubic hair, sperm and blood etc. were also taken. Investigation further

revealed that in the year 2014, when the prosecutrix was doing

computer course from ITI Shahpur, she met the petitioner. They

developed friendship and the petitioner used to come to her house.

The petitioner promised to marry the prosecutrix and on this pretext he

developed sexual relationship with the prosecutrix, but in March, 2017,

the prosecutrix came to know that the petitioner is going to marry

another girl. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed for dismissal of the

present application.

15/05/2017 23:57:05 :::HCHP
3

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and have gone through

the record, including the police report, carefully.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the

.

petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He

has further argued that the petitioner is resident of place and is not in

a position to tamper with the prosecution evidenced and also not in a

position to flee from justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

placed reliance on a judgment of this Hon’ble High Court rendered in

Harpal Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2014 (3) Shimla

Law Cases 1789, wherein the petitioner (accused) has allegedly

committed offence under Sections 376, 452 and 506 IPC and he

approached the Court seeking bail. In the case (supra) the Court held

that there is no apprehension made out by State that in the event of

petitioner being enlarged on bail, he would tamper with witnesses or

extend any threats to complainant. The Court has also observed that

there is no probability of petitioner abusing his liberty nor would he

interfere or in any manner impede with course of justice. Conversely,

the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioner

has committed a very serious crime and keeping in view the

seriousness of the crime there are chances that in case the petitioner is

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

petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

6. At this stage, taking into consideration the facts and

circumstances, as above, and also the fact that the petitioner is a

resident of the place, he is not in a position to tamper with the

15/05/2017 23:57:05 :::HCHP
4
prosecution evidence and flee from justice and also taking into

consideration the judgment rendered in Harpal Singh’s case (supra),

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.

73 of 2017, dated 19.04.2017, registered under Sections 376 and 506

of IPC, Police Station Shahpur, District Kangra, 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

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)
15th May, 2017 Judge
(virender)

15/05/2017 23:57:05 :::HCHP

Leave a Comment

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