1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No.: 827 of 2018
Date of Decision: 12.07.2018
.
_
Achhar Singh @ Amit Kumar ….Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh
…..Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate.
For the respondent: M/s Sanjeev Sood Desh Raj Thakur,
Additional Advocates General.
SI Madan Lal, IO Police Post Thaliwal,
Police Station Haroli, District Una, is
present alongwith case records.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral):
By way of this application, filed under Section 439 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular
bail in FIR No. 156 of 2018 dated 26.05.2018, registered under sections
376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Haroli, District
Una, H.P.
2. It is not in dispute that the age of the prosecutrix is 26
years and the FIR has been lodged alleging therein that the accused had
established physical relations with her since September, 2017 on the
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
13/07/2018 23:02:23 :::HCHP
2
pretext that he was unmarried and that later on he was holding out
threats to the prosecutrix as also to her family.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that at
.
the most it may be a case of consensual physical relations and inordinate
and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR itself shrouds the complaint of
the prosecutrix with suspicion. He has submitted and this fact has not
been rebutted by the prosecution that the prosecutrix and the accused
are residing in the same area and are acquainted with each other.
4.
Learned Additional Advocate General has filed the status
report and he has further apprised the Court that the investigation in the
case is almost complete and presently FSL report is awaited. He has
further contended that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may
hamper the investigation and may also try to win over the witnesses.
5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as
also learned Additional Advocate General.
6. Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the offence(s) alleged
against him, is a matter of trial. However, the facts of the case taken on
the face of it do demonstrate that whereas the alleged occurrence is of
October 2017 and onwards, the FIR has been lodged only in the month of
May, 2018. Therefore, undoubtedly, there is delay in lodging of FIR,
which delay, in my considered view, has prima facie not been
satisfactorily explained. Further, it is highly unbelievable that
prosecutrix, who was residing in the same area as the accused was, did
not knew that the accused was married or as to what was the actual
13/07/2018 23:02:23 :::HCHP
3
name of the accused. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case, in my
considered view, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. The
apprehension of the learned Additional Advocate General that in case the
.
petitioner is granted bail, he may hamper the investigation and may try to
win over the witnesses can be taken care of by imposing stringent
conditions upon the petitioner. Further, as has been submitted by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a local resident
of Village and Post Office Bathu, Police Station and Tehsil Haroli, District
Una and his entire family is settled there, therefore, in case he is
permitted to be released on bail, there is no chance of his fleeing away in
order to evade the trial. Accordingly, this application is allowed, subject
to the petitioner’s furnishing bail bonds in the sum of `50,000/ with one
local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Una/any other Judicial Magistrate available in
District Una, on the following conditions:
“i) Petitioner shall make himself
available for the purpose of interrogation, if so
required and regularly attend the trial Court on
each and every date of hearing and if prevented
by any reason to do so, seek exemption from
appearance by filing appropriate application;
ii) He shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence nor hamper the
investigation of the case in any manner
whatsoever.
13/07/2018 23:02:23 :::HCHP
4
iii) He shall not 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 Court or the
.
Police Officer; and
iv) He shall not leave the territory of
India without prior permission of the Court.”
7. It is clarified that findings which have been returned by
this Court while deciding this petition are only for the purpose of
adjudication of the present bail application and learned trial Court shall
not be influenced by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the
adjudication of this petition during the trial of the case. It is further
clarified that in case the petitioner does not comply with the conditions
which have been imposed upon him while granting the present bail, the
State shall be at liberty to approach this Court for the cancellation of the
bail. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Copy dasti.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
July 12, 2018
(bhupender)
13/07/2018 23:02:23 :::HCHP
