SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Davinder Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 27 March, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 141 of 2018

Decided on: 27th March, 2018

.

Davinder 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. Pradeep Kumar Sharma and Mr.
r Naveen Negi, Advocates.

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

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

ASI Jagdish Chand, Investigating Officer,
Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P.

_

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. 68 of 2017, dated 30.05.2017, under

Sections 376 IPC, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, 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

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

28/03/2018 23:33:03 :::HCHP
2

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.

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

.

30.05.2017 the prosecutrix (name withheld) got recorded her statement

under Section 154 Cr.P.C. before the police. As per the prosecutrix,

she used to live with her massi in Jalandhar. After the death of her

mausa, her massi remarried. Rajvir Singh (petitioner) was her friend

and on 26.05.2017 he asked to accompany him to Chintpurni temple.

While they were en route in an i-20 car her health deteriorated, so they

stayed in a guest house at Gagret. The prosecutrix has further alleged

that Rajvir Singh forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her in the

hotel room. In the morning Rajvir Singh dropped her back at

Jalandhar on the pretext that he will marry her. Thereafter, the mobile

phone of the Rajvir Singh was found switched off. Upon the statement

of the prosecutrix, a case was registered. The prosecutrix refused to

get herself medically examined. Statement of the prosecutrix was

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Police prepared the spot map and

also recorded the statements of the witnesses. The guest house room

was photographed. As per he ID given by the petitioner in the guest

house, his name was found to be Devender Singh (petitioner herein).

The petitioner despite best efforts could not be found. The prosecutrix

was entrusted in the custody of her massi. Record from the guest

house was obtained. CD of CCTV footage of the guest house was

28/03/2018 23:33:03 :::HCHP
3

obtained. The petitioner was in judicial custody in a NDPS case, so

production warrant of the petitioner was obtained and on 10.06.2017

he was medically examined. The petitioner is in judicial custody. As

.

per the police, the challan stands presented in the Court and the case

is listed for prosecution evidence on 08/09/10.05.2018. 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 have argued that the

petitioner is innocent and he is neither in a position to tamper with the

prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has

further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him

behind the bars for an unlimited period. Conversely, the learned

Additional Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration

seriousness of the offence, the application of the petitioner may be

dismissed.

6. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the petitioner have

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

unlimited period. He has further argued that 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 enlarged on bail.

28/03/2018 23:33:03 :::HCHP
4

7. At this stage taking into consideration the news item

published in the news papers, which, as per the learned Counsel for

the petitioner is a changed circumstance and also the other material,

.

which has come on record, including the FIR (Annexure P-4) and the

fact that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the

prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, this Court

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

unlimited period. 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.

r Accordingly, the petition is

allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by

the police, in connection with FIR No. 68 of 2017, dated 30.05.2017,

under Sections 376 IPC, registered at Police Station Gagret, District

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

his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- (rupees fifty

thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of

learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following

conditions:

(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

28/03/2018 23:33:03 :::HCHP
5

facts of the case so as to dissuade
him/her from disclosing such facts to the
Investigating Officer or Court.

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

.

Copy dasti.

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)

27th March, 2018 Judge
(virender)

r to

28/03/2018 23:33:03 :::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