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 the28/03/2018 23:33:03 :::HCHP
5facts 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
