SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Date Of Decision No.13.8.2018 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 13 August, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, 
SHIMLA

     Cr. MP(M) No. 1005 of 2018

.

Date of Decision No.13.8.2018
_
Chet Ram alias Deepak                       …….. Petitioner

Versus 

State of Himachal Pradesh                       …..Respondent.

_
Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? 1  Yes. 

For the petitioner:   Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate.

       For the respondent: Mr.   S.C.Sharma     Mr.   Dinesh 

Thakur,   Addl.   Advocate   Generals, 
with   Mr.   Amit   Kumar,   Deputy 
Advocate General.

_
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Bail   petitioner   namely   Chet   Ram   alias   Deepak, 

who is behind the bars since 17.3.2018, has approached this 

Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of the 

Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   praying   therein   for   grant   of 

regular   bail   in   FIR   No.61   of   2018,   dated   16.3.2018,   under 

Sections   366   and   376   of   IPC,   registered   at   police   Station, 

Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.

1

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

14/08/2018 22:59:46 :::HCHP
2

2. Sequel to order  dated 7.8.2018,  ASI  Prem  Singh, 

has come present alongwith the record. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, 

.

learned Additional Advocate General has also placed on record 

status   report,   prepared   on   the   basis   of   the   investigation 

carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and 

returned.

3. Close scrutiny of the record/status report suggests 

that   the   complainant  (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the  

‘prosecutrix’), who is 32 years old lady,   lodged a complaint 

with the police at Manali on 16.3.2018, alleging therein that 

the bail petitioner,who knows her for the last 10 years, gave 

her a call at 7:30 PM in the evening and pressurized her   to 

solemnize   marriage   with   him.   She   further   alleged   that   bail 

petitioner started weeping/crying and at 12:30 AM arrived at 

her   house   in   a   vehicle,   whereafter   she   alongwith   petitioner 

went   to   Manali   and   stayed   at   Hotel   Kilimangaro   (   Room 

No.103). As per the prosecutrix, she alongwith bail petitioner 

arrived at aforesaid Hotel at 1:45 AM, whereafter they stayed 

in   room   No.103   and   also   developed   physical   relations. 

Allegedly,   at   6:30   AM   in   the   morning   bail   petitioner   while 

14/08/2018 22:59:46 :::HCHP
3

leaving the prosecutrix in the Hotel went out on the pretext 

that  he  has  to call  person  namely,  Sunny,  but  fact  remains 

.

that   he   never   came   back,   as   a   consequences   of   which,   FIR 

detailed hereinabove, lodged against the bail petitioner at the 

behest of the prosecutrix. Police arrested the bail petitioner on 

17.3.2018   and   since   then   he   is   behind   the   bars.   After 

completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in 

the competent Court of Law.

4. Mr.   G.R.Palsra,   learned   counsel   representing   the 

bail   petitioner,   while   inviting   attention   of   this   Court   to   the 

statement   of   the   prosecutrix   recorded   under   Section   164 

Cr.P.C,   vehemently   argued   that   no   case,   if   any,     under 

Sections   366   and   376   of   IPC   is   made   against   the   bail 

petitioner, because it is quite apparent that prosecutrix, who 

was known to the bail petitioner for the last 10 years, joined 

the company of bail petitioner of her own volition and without 

there being any pressure from the bail petitioner and as such, 

bail   petitioner   deserves   to   be   enlarged   on   bail.   Mr.   Palsra, 

further contended that apart from above, medical evidence led 

on   record,   nowhere   suggests   that   bail   petitioner   sexually 

14/08/2018 22:59:46 :::HCHP
4

assaulted the prosecutrix against her wishes because there is 

no mention, if any, of marks and resistance on the body of the 

.

prosecutrix. Mr. Palsra, further contended that bare perusal of 

the   MLC   adduced   on   record,   nowhere   reveals   that   human 

blood   and   semen,   if   any,   was   found   on   the   person   of   the 

prosecutrix.     Lastly,   Mr.   Palsra   contended   that   both 

prosecutrix   and   bail   petitioner   had   prior   acquaintance   and 

they actually wanted to solemnize marriage, but same could 

not be materialized on account of opposition of parents of the 

prosecutrix.   Mr.   Palsra,   further   stated   that   as   per 

instructions imparted to him, bail petitioner is still ready to 

solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix. Mr. Palsra   argued 

that since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law 

and   nothing   is   required   to   be   recovered   from   the   bail 

petitioner,   he   deserves   to   be   enlarged   on   bail.   He   further 

stated that   bail petitioner is local resident of the area and 

there is no likelihood of his fleeing from justice, rather he shall 

make himself available for investigation and trial as and when 

called by the investigating agency.

14/08/2018 22:59:46 :::HCHP
5

5. Mr.   Dinesh   Thakur,   learned   Additional   Advocate 

General, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to 

.

filing of challan in the competent Court of law, opposed the 

prayer having been made on behalf of the bail petitioner and 

contended that keeping in view the nature of offence allegedly 

committed   by   the   bail   petitioner,   he   does   not   deserve   any 

leniency, rather needs to be dealt with severely.   Mr. Thakur 

further   contended   that   true,   it   is   that   it   has   come   in   the 

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

that she knew the bail petitioner for the last 10 years but that 

did   not   mean   that   bail   petitioner   had   a   licence   to   sexually 

assault   the   prosecutrix   that   too   against   her   wishes.   While 

refuting   the   contention   of   Mr.   Palsra,   that   nothing   has 

emerged in the medical evidence, Mr. Thakur, contended that 

Doctor in his report has categorically opined that possibility of 

sexual assault cannot be ruled out.

6. I have heard learned counsel  for  the  parties  and 

gone through the record carefully.

7. Having carefully examined the record/status report 

made   available   to   this   Court,   especially   statement   of 

14/08/2018 22:59:46 :::HCHP
6

prosecutrix   recorded   under   Section   164   Cr.P.C,   this   Court 

finds   that   prosecutrix,   who   is   32   years   old   lady   had   prior 

.

acquittance with the petitioner and they knew each other for 

the last 10 years.Otherwise also, if the complaint lodged by the 

prosecutrix is read in its entirety, nowhere reveals that she 

was kidnapped or forcibly taken out of her house by the bail 

petitioner, rather she of her own volition on the askance of bail 

petitioner joined the company of bail petitioner and as such, 

there is considerable force in the arguments of learned counsel 

for the petitioner that no case, if any, is made out against the 

bail petitioner under  Section 366 and 376 of IPC. It further 

emerge from the record that  prosecutrix of her own volition 

remained with the bail petitioner at Hotel Kilimangaro where 

she was allegedly sexually assaulted  against her wishes. This 

Court  cannot  loose the  sight  of  the  fact  that    prosecutrix  is 

major and by no stretch of imagination it can be accepted that 

she was not aware of the consequences of her having   joined 

the   company   of   the   bail   petitioner,   who   was   interested   in 

marrying her, as has been fairly admitted by the

14/08/2018 22:59:46 :::HCHP
7

prosecutrix   in   her   statement   recorded   under   Section   164 

Cr.P.C. 

.

8. Though, aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be 

considered and   decided by the learned trial Court below on 

the   basis   of   the   entire   evidence   adduced   on   record   by   the 

prosecution  but having noticed the conduct of the prosecutrix 

and the material available on record, this Court is persuaded 

to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail at this Stage.

9. Otherwise also, it is well settled that till the time 

guilty of a person is  not proved in accordance with law, he/she 

is   deemed   to   be   innocent.   Challan   stands   filed   in   the 

competent Court of law and nothing is required to be recovered 

from   the   bail   petitioner,   as   has   been   fairly   stated   by   the 

Investigating Officer, who is present in Court. No material has 

been adduced on record, from where it can be inferred that in 

the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, he may flee 

from justice and as such, this Court sees no reason to curtail 

the freedom of the petitioner for indefinite period, especially 

when the investigation in the case is almost complete. 

10 Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal 

No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh  Anr 

14/08/2018 22:59:46 :::HCHP
8

decided on 6.2.2018 has  held that freedom of an individual cannot 

be curtailed for indefinite period,  especially when his guilt has not 

.

been proved. It has further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the 

aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until 

found guilty. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:­

2.   A   fundamental   postulate   of   criminal  
jurisprudence   is   the   presumption   of   innocence,  
meaning   thereby   that   a   person   is   believed   to   be  

innocent   until   found   guilty.   However,   there   are  
instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus  
has been placed on an accused with regard to some  
specific   offences   but   that   is   another   matter   and  

does not detract from the fundamental postulate in  

respect   of   other   offences.   Yet   another   important  
facet   of   our   criminal   jurisprudence   is   that   the  
grant   of   bail   is   the   general   rule   and   putting   a  
person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home  
(whichever   expression   one   may   wish   to   use)   is   an  

exception.   Unfortunately,   some   of   these   basic  
principles appear to have been lost sight of with the  
result   that   more   and   more   persons   are   being  

incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not  
do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our  

society.

11. By now it is well settled that gravity alone cannot be 

decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required 

to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has 

been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is 

to   secure   the   appearance   of   the   accused   person   at   his   trial   by 

reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor 

preventative.  The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus  

14/08/2018 22:59:46 :::HCHP
9

Central Bureau of Investigation  (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 

49; wherein it has been held as under:­

.

” The object of bail is to secure the appearance of  

the   accused   person   at   his   trial   by   reasonable  

amount   of   bail.   The   object   of   bail   is   neither  

punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty  

must be considered a punishment, unless it can  

be required to ensure that an accused person will  

stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe  

more   than   verbal   respect   to   the   principle   that  

punishment   begins   after   conviction,   and   that  

every   man   is   deemed   to   be   innocent   until   duly  

tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody  

pending  completion of trial could be a cause of  

great   hardship.   From   time   to   time,   necessity  

demands   that   some   unconvicted   persons   should  

be held in custody pending  trial to secure their  

attendance   at   the   trial   but   in   such   cases,  

“necessity”   is   the   operative   test.   In   India   ,   it  

would   be   quite   contrary   to   the   concept   of  

personal   liberty   enshrined   in   the   Constitution  

that any person should be punished in respect of  

any   matter,   upon   which,   he   has   not   been  

convicted or that in any circumstances, he should  

be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that  

he   will   tamper   with   the   witnesses     if   left   at  

liberty,   save   in   the   most   extraordinary  

circumstances.   Apart   from   the   question   of  

prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one  

must   not   lose   sight     of   the   fact   that   any  

imprisonment before conviction has a substantial  

14/08/2018 22:59:46 :::HCHP
10

punitive   content   and   it   would   be   improper   for  

any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval  

of former conduct whether the accused has been  

.

convicted   for   it   or   not   or   to   refuse   bail   to   an  

unconvicted person for the propose of giving him  

a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.”

12. Needless   to   say   object   of   the   bail   is   to   secure   the 

attendance   of   the   accused   in   the   trial   and   the   proper   test   to   be 

applied   in   the   solution   of   the   question   whether   bail   should   be 

granted   or   refused   is   whether   it   is   probable   that   the   party   will 

appear to take his trial.  Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a 

punishment.    Otherwise  also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. 

Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence 

in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will 

entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar 

to the accused involved in that crime. 

13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar  

v.   Ashis   Chatterjee   and  Another  (2010)  14   SCC   496,   has   laid 

down the  following  principles  to  be kept  in  mind,  while   deciding 

petition for bail:

(i) whether   there   is   any   prima   facie   or 
reasonable ground to believe that the accused 
had committed the offence; 

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

14/08/2018 22:59:46 :::HCHP
11

(iii)   severity   of   the   punishment   in   the   event   of 
conviction; 

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if 

.

released on bail; 

(v) character,   behaviour,   means,   position   and 
standing of the accused; 

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; 

(vii) reasonable   apprehension   of   the   witnesses 
being influenced; and 

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted 
by grant of bail. 

Consequently,   in   view   of   the   above,   present   bail 

14.

petition   is     allowed.   Petitioner   is   ordered   to   be   enlarged   on   bail 

subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/­ 

(Rs.   One   lakh)     with   one   surety   in   the   like   amount,   to   the 

satisfaction of the learned trial Court, with following conditions:  

a. He shall make himself available for the purpose of  

interrogation, if so required and regularly attend  
the trial Court on each and every date of hearing  
and   if   prevented   by   any   reason   to   do   so,   seek  

exemption from appearance by filing appropriate  
application;

b. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence  
nor   hamper   the   investigation   of   the   case   in   any  
manner whatsoever;

c. He     shall   not   make   any   inducement,   threat   or  
promises to any person acquainted with the facts  
of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing  
such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

d. He shall not leave the territory of India without the  
prior permission of the Court.   

14/08/2018 22:59:46 :::HCHP
12

 

15. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses his liberty 

or   violates   any   of   the   conditions   imposed   upon   him,   the 

.

investigating   agency   shall   be   free   to   move   this   Court   for 

cancellation of his  bail.  

16. Any   observations   made   hereinabove   shall   not   be 

construed   to   be   a   reflection   on   the   merits   of   the   case   and   shall 

remain confined to the disposal of this application alone.  

The bail petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Copy dasti.  

 (Sandeep Sharma),
   Judge

13th  August, 2018
        (shankar)

14/08/2018 22:59:46 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

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

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