SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Devender Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 3 October, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MPs(M) No. 1200 1202 of 2018
Decided on: 3rd October, 2018

.

Cr.MP(M) No. 1200 of 2018:

Devender Singh ….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent

Cr.MP(M) No. 1202 of 2018:
Vinod Kumar ….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. Prashant Chaudhary and Mr.
Dhairya Sushant, Advocates.

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

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

SI Purshotam Ram, Police Station
Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P.

_

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).

The present bail applications have been moved by the

petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for

releasing them on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 146

of 2018, dated 21.08.2018, under Section 376 IPC, registered in Police

Station Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

2. As per the averments made in the petitions, the

petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present

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

04/10/2018 22:58:16 :::HCHP
2

case. They are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution

evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. They are ready and

willing to join the investigation, so they be released on bail.

.

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

21.08.2018, the prosecutrix (name withheld) made a written complaint

to the police wherein it is averred that her brother-in-law (Nandoi) and

his friend, Devender Singh (petitioners herein) made a video clip of the

prosecutrix. On 12.05.2017, petitioner Devender Singh called the

prosecutrix and when the prosecutrix went to meet him, he had sexual

intercourse with her and also prepared her video. Petitioner Devender

Singh sent her photos and video to petitioner Vinod Kumar.

Subsequently, petitioner Vinod Kumar sent her video and photos to the

husband of the prosecutrix and he started threatening him that he will

upload the video and photos on social media. On the anvil of the

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

investigation ensued. The prosecutrix did not agree to get herself

medically examined. Police did not find any obscenity in the screen

shot wherein the prosecutrix and petitioner Devender Singh were

simply sitting together and this screen shot was allegedly sent by

petitioner Vinod Kumar to the husband of the prosecutrix. Police

prepared the spot map of the hotel room, where the prosecutrix was

allegedly raped by petitioner Devender Singh. However, no record qua

the stay of the prosecutrix and petitioner Devender Singh was found in

the records of the hotel. As per the prosecution, on 19.04.2018 the

04/10/2018 22:58:16 :::HCHP
3

prosecutrix gave a complaint against the petitioners, wherein no

allegations qua sexual assault was made and the allegations were qua

cheating only. Subsequently, the matter was amicably settled through

.

Panchayat. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section

164 Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation petitioner Devender

Singh disclosed that as he wanted to purchase land in Shimla, the

prosecutrix told him that she would get the land for him and in that

context he used to talk with her. The police have sent the mobile

phones of the petitioners and the mobile of the husband of the

prosecutrix to RFSL, Dharamshala, for examination.

r Report from

RFSL, Dharamshala, is yet awaited. The husband of the prosecutrix

could not produce any obscene video or photo of the prosecutrix.

Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail applications be

dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners,

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 ready and willing to join the investigation and their

custodial interrogation is not at all required. He has further argued

that by keeping the petitioners behind the bars no fruitful purpose will

be served. The petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the

prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may

be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate

04/10/2018 22:58:16 :::HCHP
4

General has argued that in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail,

they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from

justice. The petitioners have committed a serious offence, thus it is

.

prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed.

6. At this moment, considering the facts that the petitioners

are ready and willing to join the investigation, the manner in which the

offence is alleged to have taken place, delay in lodging the FIR and

overall aspects of the case, which have come on record and also the

fact that the petitioners are ready and willing to join the investigation

and co-operate in it, they are neither in a position to tamper with the

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

finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit

the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest, is required to be

exercised in their favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that

the petitioners be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case

FIR No. 146 of 2018, dated 21.08.2018, under Section 376 IPC,

registered in Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal

Pradesh, on their furnishing personal bond to the tune of `25,000/-

(rupees twenty five thousand) each with one surety each in the like

amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is

granted subject to the following conditions:

(i) That the petitioners will join investigation of the case as
and when called for by the Investigating Officer in
accordance with law.

(ii) That the petitioners will not leave India without prior
permission of the Court.

04/10/2018 22:58:16 :::HCHP
5

(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.

.

7. In view of the above, the petitions stand disposed of.

Copy dasti.

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
3rd October, 2018 Judge
(virender)

r to

04/10/2018 22:58:16 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh