SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Cr.Mp No. 624 Of 2018 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 29 May, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MPs(M) No. 624 625 of 2018
Decided on: 28th May, 2018

1. Cr.MP No. 624 of 2018:

.

Rakesh Kumar ….Petitioner

Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent

2. Cr.MP No. 625 of 2018:

Vinor Kumar ….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent

Coram

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

For the petitioner: Mr. Lakshay Thakur and Mr. Virender
r Singh Rathore, Advocates.

For the respondent/State: Mr. Ashwani Sharma and Mr. P.K.

Bhatti, Additional Advocates General with
Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.

SI/SHO Mohar Singh, Police Station
Karsog, District Mandi, H.P.

_

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).

The present bail applications have been maintained by the

petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

seeking their release in case FIR No. 75 of 2018, dated 25.04.2018,

under Sections 363, 366A and 120 B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC),

registered at Police Station Karsog, District Mandi, H.P.

1

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

30/05/2018 23:01:52 :::HCHP
2

2. As per the averments made in the petitions, the

petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present

case. They are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution

.

evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will

be served by keeping them behind the bars for an unlimited period, so

they be released on bail.

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

25.04.2018 Shri Hari Singh (complainant) gave a complaint to the

police, wherein it has been alleged that on 24.04.2018 his elder

daughter (prosecutrix), who studies in 10+1, did not return from the

school. On inquiry, it came to their knowledge that the prosecutrix left

the school at 01:00 p.m. The complainant received a phone call from

mobile No. 98053-87033 on his cell No. 86298-25132 and he was

informed by the caller that he took the prosecutrix. On the basis of the

complaint, so filed by the complainant, a case was registered and

investigation ensued. During the course of investigation it was

unearthed that one Vinod Kumar alongwith his accomplice Rakesh

Kumar (petitioners herein) took the prosecutrix in vehicle No. HP86-

1231 and petitioner Vinod Kumar wanted to marry the prosecutrix.

Police obtained the date of birth record qua the prosecutrix. On

26.04.2018 petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, made a telephonic call from

mobile No. 7018389419 to his family, so according to location of cell

phone and investigation made by the police, it was found that on

30/05/2018 23:01:52 :::HCHP
3

25.04.2018 the petitioners and the prosecutrix came in vehicle No.

HP86-1231 to Hotel Akaash Hotel, Nalagarh. Petitioner Vinod Kumar

and the prosecutrix stayed in room No. 6 of the hotel, whereas

.

petitioner Rakesh Kumar slept in the vehicle. On the subsequent day,

the petitioners and the prosecutrix left the hotel. Police visited the

hotel and took into possession the bed sheet of the bed of room No. 6.

On 29.04.2018 the prosecutrix was recovered from Industrial Area,

Chandigarh. The prosecutrix refused to get herself medically

examined. On 29.04.2018 petitioner Vinod Kumar was arrested and

medically examined. Upon the identification of petitioner Vinod Kumar

spot maps were prepared and vehicle No. HP86-1231 was taken into

possession. On 07.05.2018 petitioner Rakesh Kumar was arrested.

Scientific samples were sent to RFSL. As per the prosecution, the

challan is ready and is under consideration. Lastly, it is prayed that

the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed as the petitioners

were found involved in a serious offence and in case they are released

on bail they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also

flee from justice.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners,

learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the

record, including the police report, carefully.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that

the petitioners are innocent. They are neither in a position to tamper

30/05/2018 23:01:52 :::HCHP
4

with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He

has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping

them behind the bars for an unlimited period. The petitioners are ready

.

and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case so

granted, which shall be imposed by this Court. Therefore, the

applications be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. The

learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment of

this Court rendered in Suneel Kumar vs. State of Himachal

Pradesh, 2013 (3) Shimla Law Cases 1574, wherein bail was

granted under Section 439 to the accused persons, who believed to

have roots in society, as there was no possibility of the accused fleeing

away from justice or jumping over the bail. Conversely, the learned

Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners were found

involved in a serious offence and in case they are released on bail, they

may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from

justice. He has argued that taking into consideration seriousness of

the offence, the applications of the petitioners may be dismissed.

6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioners have

argued that the petitioners cannot be kept behind the bars for an

unlimited period. He has further argued that the petitioners are

neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a

position to flee from justice, so they may be enlarged on bail.

30/05/2018 23:01:52 :::HCHP
5

7. At this stage, after carefully going through the records and

the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that the petitioners

are residents of the place, neither in a position to tamper with the

.

prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, there is no

medical examination and opinion qua the prosecutrix and also

considering the age of the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be kept

behind the bars for an unlimited period and the ends of justice will

only be met in case they are enlarged on bail. This Court considering

the overall aspects of the case as also the law, as citied by the learned

counsel for the petitioners, finds that the present is a fit case where the

judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be

exercised in their favour. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and it

is ordered that the petitioners, who have been arrested by the police, in

case FIR No. 75 of 2018, dated 25.04.2018, under Sections 363, 366A

and 120 B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), registered at Police Station

Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., they shall be released on bail forthwith in

this case, subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of

`50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like

amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The bail is granted

subject to the following conditions:

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

(ii) That the petitioners will not leave India
without prior permission of the Court.

30/05/2018 23:01:52 :::HCHP
6

(iii) That the petitioners 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.

8. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of.

Copy dasti.

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
29th May, 2018 Judge

(virender)

30/05/2018 23:01:52 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh