IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. 41 of 2020
Decided on: 9th January, 2020
.
Hari Ram ….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. Inderjit Singh Narwal, Advocate.
For the respondent/State: Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans and Mr. P.K. Bhatti,
Addl. AGs, with Mr. Amit Dhumal, Dy. AG.
SI Bhupender Singh, Police Station Bagga,
District Solan, 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. 08 of 2019, dated 22.11.2019, under Sections 9, 10
and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage, Act, 2006, Section 4 of POCSO Act,
2012 and Section 376 IPC, registered at Police Station Bagga, 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
permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the
prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
09/01/2020 20:30:59 :::HCHP
2
purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited
period, so he be released on bail.
3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on
.
19.01.2019 police were informed, through a communication from Medical
Officer, PHC, Navgaon, qua the prosecutrix (name withheld), who is 15
years old and pregnant. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded
under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein she stated that she studied upto 8th
standard and her date of birth is 26.03.2006. Her parents engaged her
with the petitioner and on 09/10.03.2019, with the consent of both the
families, she was married with the petitioner according to Hindu rites and
customs. Thereafter, both of them started having physical relations. Upon
the statement of the prosecutrix, police got her medically examined and she
was sent to Child Welfare Committee, Solan. Police registered a case and
the investigation ensued. Police prepared the spot map, made relevant
seizures and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The petitioner was
arrested and medically examined. Statement of the prosecutrix was got
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation,
police procured the records qua the date of birth of the prosecutrix and as
per the records, she was found to be born on 26.03.2006. As per the police,
challan in the case shall be presented in the learned Trial Court soon.
Lastly, it is prayed that in case the petitioner, at this stage, is enlarged on
bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from
09/01/2020 20:30:59 :::HCHP
3
justice. Petitioner was found involved in a serious crime, so the bail
application of the petitioner 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 has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further
argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and 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 the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially
when investigation is complete and challan is likely to be presented in the
learned Trial Court soon. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate
General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and
in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence
and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the bail application of the
petitioner may be dismissed.
6. In rebuttal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued
that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period,
especially when investigation is complete and challan stands presented in
the learned Trial Court, so the bail application of the petitioner be allowed.
09/01/2020 20:30:59 :::HCHP
4
7. At this stage, considering the age of the petitioner, who is only
28 years of age, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been
committed by the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner is permanent
.
resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the
prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, custody of the
petitioner is not at all required by the police, as investigation is complete
and challan is likely to be presented in the learned Trial Court soon, also
considering the overall material, which has come on record, and without
discussing the same at this stage, the fact that the petitioner is ready and
willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case so granted, and
also the fact that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an
unlimited period, so 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. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the
petitioner, who has been arrested by the police in case FIR No. 08 of 2019,
dated 22.11.2019, under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child
Marriage, Act, 2006, Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 376 IPC,
registered at Police Station Bagga, District Solan, H.P., shall be released on
bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the
sum of `25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is granted
subject to the following conditions:
09/01/2020 20:30:59 :::HCHP
5
(i) That the petitioner will appear before the
learned Trial Court/Police/authorities 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 toany person acquainted with the 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)
9th January, 2020 Judge
(virender)
09/01/2020 20:30:59 :::HCHP
