SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Cr.Mp(M) No. 773 Of 2018 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 27 June, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 773 of 2018
Decided on: 27th June, 2018
Ankush and another ….Petitioners

.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioners: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.

For the respondent/State: Mr. P.K. Bhatti, Additional Advocate

General.

_
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).

The present bail application has been maintained by the

petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

seeking their release in case FIR No. 82 of 2018, dated 12.06.2018,

under Section 354-D IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 12 of

the POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur,

H.P.

2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioners

are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.

They are residents 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 them behind the bars for an

unlimited period, so they be released on bail.

1

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

27/06/2018 23:03:25 :::HCHP
2

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

12.05.2018 the prosecutrix (name withheld) made a complaint to the

police, wherein it is averred that she studies in 10+1 in Senior

.

Secondary School, Bhareri. On 09.06.2018, two boys gave her a slip

whereon a mobile number was written and on 11.06.2018, after

alighting from bus, when she was going to her home on foot, three boys

came on a motorcycle and they tried to give a slip having mobile

number, but she did not accept. On 12.06.2018, at about 02:05 p.m.,

when she was going on foot to her home, a vehicle, having registration

No. PH10BH-1146 came from Badher side, and the same was stopped

in front of her. Three boys were sitting in the vehicle and the driver of

the vehicle forcibly tried to pull her from her arm. In the interregnum,

her aunt came there and she objected. As per the prosecutrix, the

petitioners tried to forcibly take her, so they followed her. On the basis

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

the investigation ensued. Police prepared the spot map and the

prosecutrix was medically examined. As per the medical examination

report, the prosecutrix sustained simple injuries. The statements of

the witnesses were recorded. The petitioners were arrested and the

statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

The vehicles, viz. car having registration No. PH10BH-1446, and

motorcycle having registration number HP74-5340, were taken in

possession alongwith the documents. During the course of

27/06/2018 23:03:25 :::HCHP
3

investigation, Section 8 was supplanted with Section 12 of the POCSO

Act, as no case was made out under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Police

also procured records qua the age of the prosecutrix, which

.

demonstrated that on the date of occurrence she was just below sixteen

years of age. The prosecution has prayed that in case the petitioners

are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence

and may also flee from justice. The challan is yet to be prepared.

Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application 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 petitioner, learned

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

including the police report, carefully.

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

petitioners are innocent. They are residents 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 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 application be

allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. Conversely, the

learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners

27/06/2018 23:03:25 :::HCHP
4

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 the

.

seriousness of the offence, the application of the petitioners be

dismissed.

6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioners has

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

unlimited period. He has further argued 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, so they be

enlarged on bail.

7. At this stage, after giving deep thought to overall facts and

circumstances of the case, which have come on record, considering the

way the incident was reported that the petitioners followed the

prosecutrix, who is just less than 16 years of age and studying in 10+1,

the age of the prosecutrix as well as the petitioners and the fact that

nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners, this Court finds that

the petitioners are not in a position to flee from justice, as they are

residents of the place and they are also not in a position to tamper with

the prosecution evidence. Therefore, this Court 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

petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners, who have been

27/06/2018 23:03:25 :::HCHP
5

arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 82 of 2018, dated 12.06.2018,

under Section 354 D IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 12 of

the POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur,

.

H.P., they shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to

their furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- (rupees twenty

five 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.

(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.

(iv) In case the petitioners try 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)
27th June, 2018 Judge
(virender)

27/06/2018 23:03:25 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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