-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