IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 1569 of 2017
Decided on: 7th March, 2018
Daljeet 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. Rajiv Rai, Advocate.

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

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

_
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).

The present bail application has been moved by the

petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for

releasing him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 110 of

2017, dated 20.11.2017, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section

6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kot Kehloor, 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

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

position to flee from justice. It is further averred that as he demanded

his money back from the father of the prosecutrix, so he got registered

a false case against him. As per the petitioner, there was an

1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

08/03/2018 23:02:57 :::HCHP
2

understanding between his and the family of the prosecutrix that as

and when the prosecutrix completes 18 years of age, marriage will be

solemnized amongst the petitioner and the prosecutrix. The petitioner

.

has also averred that the prosecutrix was engaged with him and he

gave `2,00,000/- (rupees two lac) to her family as they required the

same. The petitioner asked the father of the prosecutrix to return the

money, so the relationship inter se their families became strained. The

matter was reported to the panchayat, however, before the decision of

the panchayat, the prosecutrix reported falsely to the police. Lastly,

the petitioner prays that he may be granted bail.

3. Police reports stand filed. As per the police report, on

20.11.2017, the prosecutrix, by way of a complaint, reported to the

police that she is a student of 10+2 and the petitioner became her

friend. As per the prosecutrix, the petitioner used to talk with her.

The petitioner asked the prosecutrix to meet him and when she met

him, he forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the

petitioner again asked the prosecutrix to come and threatened to kill

her or himself. The prosecutrix refused to meet the petitioner and the

matter came into the knowledge of her parents. Panchayat settled the

matter and the prosecutrix was given Rs. 2,00,000/-. Thereafter, the

petitioner did not desist from his activities and when the prosecutrix

again went to meet her, he forcibly sexually assaulted her. It is further

averred in the complaint that the petitioner started threatening the

08/03/2018 23:02:57 :::HCHP
3

prosecutrix and her family members. On the basis of the complaint, so

filed by the prosecutrix, a case was registered against the petitioner

and the police investigation ensued. The prosecutrix was medically

.

examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.

The police prepared spot map and statements of the witnesses were

also recorded. Record, qua date of birth of the prosecutrix, was also

obtained. Record qua money transactions between the family of the

prosecutrix and the petitioner was also obtained. The investigation

further revealed that in the 2016 the petitioner was engaged with the

prosecutrix and for that `2,00,000/- was given to the family of the

prosecutrix, but now the petitioner is demanding his money back. The

petitioner has sexually assaulted the prosecutrix and also threatening

her and her family. Now the petitioner is co-operating in the

investigation of the case, but he is misleading the police. The petitioner

is very clever person and two criminal cases are pending against him in

Anandpur Sahib. The petitioner is in a position to tamper with the

prosecution evidence and he is also in a position to flee from justice, so

it has been prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be

dismissed.

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

Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record,

including the police report, carefully.

08/03/2018 23:02:57 :::HCHP
4

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the

petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation and his

custodial interrogation is not at all required. He has also argued that

.

by keeping the petitioner behind the bars no fruitful purpose will be

served. The petitioner 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. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General

has argued that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may

tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice.

The petitioner has committed a serious offence, thus it has been prayed

that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

6. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that the

petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation and neither in

a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to

flee from justice, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion

to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, is required to

be exercised in his favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered

that the petitioner be released on bail, in the event of arrest, in case

FIR No. 110 of 2017, dated 20.11.2017, registered at Police Station Kot

Kehloor, District Bilaspur, H.P., on his 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:

08/03/2018 23:02:57 :::HCHP
5

(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.

(iv) In case the prosecution finds that the petitioner
is tampering with the prosecution evidence, the
prosecution will be at liberty to approach this

Court seeking cancellation of his bail.

7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

Copy dasti.

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
7th March, 2018 Judge
(virender)

08/03/2018 23:02:58 :::HCHP