SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Achhar Singh @ Amit Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 12 July, 2018



Cr. MP(M)  No.:                 827 of  2018

Date of Decision:               12.07.2018



Achhar Singh @ Amit Kumar ….Petitioner.


State of Himachal Pradesh


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

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.  


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

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

13/07/2018 23:02:23 :::HCHP

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)
July 12, 2018


13/07/2018 23:02:23 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation