SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Cr.Mp(M) No. 577 Of 2018 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 June, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 577 of 2018
Decided on: 20th June, 2018
Arif Iqbal ….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. Adarsh K. Vashisht, Advocate.

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

Bhatti, Additional Advocates General.

_
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. 525 of 2017, dated 25.12.2017, under

Sections 376, 328 and 506 IPC and, registered at Police Station Paonta

Sahib, District Sirmour, 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, 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 him behind the bars for an unlimited

period, so he be released on bail.

1

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

21/06/2018 23:00:51 :::HCHP
2

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

25.12.2017 the prosecutrix (name withheld) made a written complaint

to the police, wherein she alleged that the petitioner used to stalk her.

.

The prosecutrix told the petitioner that she is already married, but the

petitioner did not mend his ways. The petitioner got the phone number

of the prosecutrix and they used to talk her. In the month of April,

2017, the petitioner asked the prosecutrix to come to Ranbaxy Chowk,

where the petitioner gave a chocolate to the prosecutrix and after

eating the same she became unconscious. When the prosecutrix

regained consciousness, she found herself naked in a room of Arsh

Paying Guest and the petitioner was also there. The prosecutrix told

him that she would report the matter to the police, but the petitioner

showed her obscene video and he threatened to get the video viral.

Thereafter, on the pretext of that video the petitioner sexually assaulted

the prosecutrix many times. When the prosecutrix avoided the

telephonic calls of the petitioner, he came to her muhalla. The

petitioner on the pretext of that video blackmailed her and also gave

beatings to her. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the

prosecutrix, a case was registered and the investigation ensued.

During the course of investigation the statements of the witnesses were

recorded and the spot map was prepared. The petitioner was arrested

and two mobile phones of the petitioner were taken into possession.

The petitioner was medically examined and the prosecutrix refused to

21/06/2018 23:00:52 :::HCHP
3

get herself medically examined. The statement of the prosecutrix was

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Mobile phone of the petitioner was

sent to SFSL, Junga, for forensic analysis and report thereof is awaited.

.

Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be

dismissed as the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and

in case he is released on bail he may tamper with the prosecution

evidence and may also flee from justice.

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.

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

petitioner is innocent. 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. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him

behind the bars for an unlimited period. The petitioner is 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 application be

allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. Conversely, the learned

Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found

involved in a serious offence and in case he is released on bail, he may

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

He has argued that taking into consideration the seriousness of the

offence, the application of the petitioner be dismissed.

21/06/2018 23:00:52 :::HCHP
4

6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has

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

unlimited period. He has further argued that 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, so he be enlarged on bail.

7. At this stage, considering the overall aspects of the case,

the material which has come on record, the age of prosecutrix, age of

the petitioner and the manner in which the offence is alleged to have

occurred, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot be allowed to 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. Therefore,

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 petition is allowed and it is ordered that

the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 525

of 2017, dated 25.12.2017, under Sections 376, 328 and 506 IPC and,

registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., he

shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, 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:

21/06/2018 23:00:52 :::HCHP
5

(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 such facts to the

Investigating Officer or Court.

(iv) In case the petitioner tries to interfere with
the prosecution evidence in whatsoever
manner, even remotely, the prosecution

can approach this Court for recalling of
this order.

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

Copy dasti.

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
20th June, 2018 Judge

(virender)

21/06/2018 23:00:52 :::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.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation