SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ankush Alias Shivam vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 7 November, 2017



Cr. MP(M) No. 1366 of 2017
Decided on: 7th November,2017


Ankush alias Shivam ….Petitioner.

State of Himachal Pradesh. …Respondent.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.

For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sipahiya and Mr. Manoj

Bagga, Advocates.

For the respondent: Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.

ASI Nokh Ram, Police Station
r Sadar, Solan, H.P.


Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge (oral).

The present bail application has been maintained by

the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

seeking his release in case FIR No. 97 of 2016, dated 18.05.2016,

under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as

“IPC”), registered at Police Station Sadar, District Solan, H.P.

2. As per the petitioner, he is innocent and has been

falsely implicated in the present case. He is 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.


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

14/11/2017 18:26:55 :::HCHP

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

18.05.2016, the prosecutrix, by moving a complaint to the police,

alleged that in the year 2015 she used to work in Shoolni


Packaging where the petitioner also used to work and they were

friends. On 17th August, 2015, the petitioner took the prosecutrix

to the room of his friend and he had sexual intercourse with her on

the pretext of marrying her. Thereafter, the petitioner many times

sexually assaulted the prosecutrix on the pretext of marrying her.

On 20th February, 2016, the petitioner took the prosecutrix to

Anand Hotel and there also he sexually assaulted her. As per the

prosecutrix, after winding up of Shoolni Packaging the petitioner

went to Noida in search of work and they used to talk on phone,

however, now the petitioner is refusing to marry her. On the basis

of the complaint of the prosecutrix, police machinery was set into

motion and an FIR was registered against the petitioner. Spot map

was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded.

Statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164

Cr.P.C. and the petitioner was arrested on 21.05.2016. The

prosecutrix and the petitioner were medically examined. Report

from State Forensic Science Laboratory was also obtained and the

final report of doctor is that the possibility of sexual abuse can not

be ruled out. During the course of investigation, it was also

unearthed that the prosecutrix became pregnant and she also

attempted suicide. As per the prosecution, the challan stands

14/11/2017 18:26:55 :::HCHP

presented in the Court and next date of hearing is 21.12.2017.

Lastly, it has been prayed that the bail application of the petitioner

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 prosecutrix

was four years elder to the petitioner. The petitioner was just 19

years of age when the offence is alleged to have committed. As per

the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only case is that the

petitioner was seen by the prosecutrix chatting with another girl on

facebook and this is the reason that she lodged the FIR against the

petitioner. He has stated that the petitioner is totally innocent and

he may be released on bail, as he has already behind the bars

since long. He has further argued that the petitioner is not in a

position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, as sufficient

evidence, including the prosecutrix, stands already examined.

Conversely, Law Officer, appearing for the respondent/State has

argued that taking into consideration the seriousness of the case,

the bail application, so maintained by the petitioner, may be


5. I have gone through the rival contentions of the parties

and the police report in detail.

14/11/2017 18:26:55 :::HCHP

6. At this stage taking into consideration the facts that

the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than two years,

he is a young man going through the agony of remaining behind


the bars, he is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution

evidence and also not in a position to flee from justice, this Court

finds that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an

unlimited period before he being adjudicated guilty. Therefore,

keeping in view the material, which has come on record, and

without discussing the same at this stage, 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, who has been arrested by the police of Police Station

Sadar, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in connection with FIR No. 97 of

2016, dated 18.05.2016, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station,

Sadar, District Solan, H.P., he shall be released on bail forthwith,

subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/-

(rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to

the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject

to the following conditions:

(i) That the petitioner will appear before the
learned Trial Court as and when required.

(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

14/11/2017 18:26:55 :::HCHP

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)
7th November, 2017 Judge

r to

14/11/2017 18:26:55 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2019 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh