SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Cr.Mp(M) No. 862 Of 2018 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 23 July, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 862 of 2018
Decided on: 23rd July, 2018
Sushil 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. Ajay Sipahiya and Ms. Divya Sood,
Advocates.

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

Bhatti, Additional Advocates General.

ASI Krishna, Police Station, Sadar Solan,
r District Solan, H.P.

_

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. 54 of 2014, dated 09.03.2014, under

Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered in

Police Station, Sadar, District Solan, 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.

1

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

24/07/2018 23:01:36 :::HCHP
2

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

one Amar Singh (complaint) made a complaint to the police whereupon

a case was registered against the petitioner. The complainant has

.

alleged that on 08.03.2014, at about 09:30 p.m., daughter of his

brother, prosecutrix (name withheld), who was aged about 16 years

and studying in 10th class, after taking dinner went to her bedroom,

but thereafter she went missing. Despite best efforts, the prosecutrix

could not be traced. The complainant party came to know that the

prosecutrix was kidnapped/abducted by some unknown person. Upon

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

the investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, the

petitioner was arrested on 21.03.2014. Police found the involvement of

the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence, hence challan

was filed against the petitioner in the learned Trial Court. As per the

prosecution, now the case is being listed for final arguments. Lastly,

the prosecution has prayed that the bail application 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.

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

petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than four years. The

petitioner is innocent and he is not in a position to flee from justice. It

is further argued that now the case is being listed for the last six

24/07/2018 23:01:36 :::HCHP
3

months before the learned Trial Court for final arguments and no

prejudice will be caused to the respondent/State, in case he is released

on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has

.

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

justice. The petitioner has committed a serious offence, thus the bail

application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

6. At this moment, after considering the overall facts of the

case, as has come on record, and also considering the fact that the

petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than four years, he is

resident of the place and not in a position to flee from justice, so this

Court finds that it would not be apt to keep the petitioner behind the

bars for an unlimited period, as the evidence in the case in hand

stands recorded by the learned Trial Court and now the case is listed

for final arguments. Thus, the present is a fit case where the judicial

discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is 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

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

amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, in case FIR No.

54 of 2014, dated 09.03.2014, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and

Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station, Sadar, District

Solan, H.P. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:

24/07/2018 23:01:36 :::HCHP
4

(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.

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

Copy dasti.

23rd July, 2018
(virender)
r to (Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
Judge

24/07/2018 23:01:36 :::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