IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. 1159 of 2018
Decided on: 13th September, 2018
Manoj Kumar ….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. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent/State: Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.
_
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).
The present bail application has been moved by the
petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking
his release in case FIR No. 88 of 2017, dated 11.04.2017, under
Section 363, 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered in Police
Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P.
2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner 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.
3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on
11.04.2017, Shri Jeet Ram (complainant), moved a written complaint
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
13/09/2018 23:04:12 :::HCHP
2
to the police, wherein it has been alleged that on 11.04.2014 his sister,
prosecutrix (name withheld), went to see nalwari (a village fair) and
when the prosecutrix did not return, the complainant alongwith other
.
searched her, but in vain. The complainant raised apprehension that
the prosecutrix could have been taken away by the petitioner, so a case
was registered and the investigation ensued. On 12.04.2017 the
prosecutrix was recovered from IPH Chowk, Ghumarwin, and the
petitioner was arrested. The police recorded the statements of the
witnesses and she was medically examined. On the anvil of the
statement of the prosecutrix, Section 376 was also added.
r Police
prepared the spot maps and the spots were photographed and
videographed. Police also recovered a motor cycle having registration
No. HP23C-3491, which was taken into possession. The gynecologist
opined that the hymen is ruptured. Police procured the record qua the
date of birth of the prosecutrix and according to which at the time of
the commission of the offence, she was sixteen years and four months
of age. Report of DNA test is yet to be received and the challan stands
presented in the Court. Three prosecution witnesses are yet to be
examined. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application
be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Law
Officer for the State and gone through the record, including the police
report, carefully.
13/09/2018 23:04:12 :::HCHP
3
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case in
hand. The petitioner 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 and cannot be
kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. Conversely, the Law
Officer has argued the petitioner has committed a serious offence and
in case he is enlarged on bail he may flee from justice any may also
tamper with the prosecution evidence. It is prayed that the bail
application of the petitioner may be dismissed.
6. It has come in the evidence, a copy of the same has been
produced before this Court, that the accused (petitioner) told his
mother that he had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. At this
stage, without considering this fact, which will be ultimately the
prerogative of the Civil Court, in case there is any dispute to that effect,
this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be kept
behind the bars for an unlimited period, as the petitioner is resident of
the place, neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution
evidence, nor in a position to flee from justice and also considering the
manner in which the crime is alleged to have been perpetrated and also
considering the material, which is emanating from the records and
without discussing the same, this Court finds that the present is a fit
case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is
13/09/2018 23:04:12 :::HCHP
4
required to be exercised in his favour. Therefore, it is ordered that the
petitioner be released forthwith on bail, on his furnishing personal
bond to the tune of `25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with
.
one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court, in case FIR No. 88 of 2017, dated 11.04.2017, under Section
363, 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station
Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. 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 promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade him/her from disclosing suchfacts to the Investigating Officer or Court.
7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.
Copy dasti.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
13th September, 2018 Judge
(virender)
13/09/2018 23:04:12 :::HCHP
