IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CrMP(M) No. 604 of 2018
Decided on May 28, 2018
__
.
Harish Kumar … 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. Jyotirmay Bhatt, Advocate vice
Mr. Pratap Singh Goverdhan,
Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. S.C. Sharma and Mr. Dinesh
r Thakur, Addl. AG’s with Mr. Amit
Kumar, DAG.
L/ASI Krishna Kumari, IO, Police
Station Sadar, Solan, District Solan,
Himachal Pradesh.
__
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
Bail petitioner, namely Harish Kumar, apprehending
arrest in FIR No. 132/18 dated 8.5.2018 under Sections 376 and
506 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Solan,
Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant
proceedings filed under Section 438 CrPC, praying therein for
grant of pre-arrest bail.
2. Sequel to order dated 21.5.2018, whereby bail petitioner was
ordered to be enlarged on bail, in the event of his arrest, L/ASI
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
28/05/2018 23:02:20 :::HCHP
2
Krishna Kumari has come present with the record. Mr. Dinesh
Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has also placed on
record status report, prepared on the basis of investigation carried
.
out by the investigating agency. Record perused and returned.
3. Close scrutiny of record/status report clearly reveals that
the bail petitioner as well as complainant-prosecutrix were known
to each other for the last more than five years and during this
period, they had developed physical relations. As per complainant-
prosecutrix, bail petitioner repeatedly sexually assaulted her
under the pretext of marriage and in the month of October, 2016,
she had become pregnant, but bail petitioner by administering her
medicines, got the pregnancy terminated against her wishes.
Allegedly, on 9.4.2017, bail petitioner took complainant-
prosecutrix to Kapoor Hospital, Chambaghat but even at that time,
no complaint, whatsoever, was lodged by the complainant-
prosecutrix against the illegal acts of bail petitioner, rather record
suggests that complainant-prosecutrix kept on meeting the bail
petitioner thereafter also.
4. Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, learned vice counsel representing the
bail petitioner, while referring to the status report strenuously
argued that no case is made out against the bail petitioner. He
further stated that the complainant-prosecutrix is a 32 year old
lady and it can not be said that the bail petitioner exploited her
taking advantage of her ignorance/innocence. Lastly, Mr. Bhatt,
28/05/2018 23:02:20 :::HCHP
3
contended that the investigation in the case is complete and
nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner and as
such, bail petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
.
5. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, on
the instructions of the Investigating Officer, who is present in the
court, fairly admitted that the bail petitioner has joined
investigation in terms of order dated 21.5.2018 and is fully
cooperating. Mr. Thakur, while fairly admitting that nothing is
required to be recovered from the bail petitioner at this stage,
forcefully opposed the prayer having been made on behalf of bail
petitioner, for grant of bail and contended that keeping in view the
gravity of the offence allegedly committed by the bail petitioner, he
does not deserves to be enlarged on bail, rather needs to be dealt
with severely. Mr. Thakur further contended that though it
appears from the record that complainant-prosecutrix and bail
petitioner were known to each other for quite considerable time
but that may not be a ground for grant of bail, especially when it
has come in the investigation that bail petitioner repeatedly
sexually assaulted the complainant-prosecutrix against her
wishes.
6. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties
and gone through the record, it is quite apparent that the
complainant-prosecutrix and bail petitioner were known to each
other for the last more than five years and during this period, they
28/05/2018 23:02:20 :::HCHP
4
had developed intimate relations with each other. It has
specifically come in the investigation that the complainant-
prosecutrix had become pregnant in the month of October, 2016,
.
whereafter allegedly, bail petitioner got her pregnancy terminated
against her wishes, but there is nothing on record to suggest that
during this period, especially immediately after alleged termination
of pregnancy, complaint, if any, was ever lodged by the
complainant-prosecutrix against aforesaid illegal act of the bail
petitioner. Admittedly, complainant-prosecutrix is a 32 year old
lady and it can not be said that she was not aware of consequence
of such relationship.
7. Though aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be considered
and decided by the court below, on the basis of evidence, if any,
led on record by the investigating agency but this court sees no
reason to keep the bail petitioner behind the bars for indefinite
period, especially when he has joined the investigation and is fully
cooperating.
8. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.
227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Anr
decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual can
not be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt
is yet to be 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:
28/05/2018 23:02:20 :::HCHP
5
“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 grantof 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 thatmore and more persons are being incarcerated and
for longer periods. This does not do any good to our
criminal jurisprudence or to our society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail
is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a
case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretionhas been circumscribed by a large number of
decisions rendered by this Court and by every High
Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a
necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an
accused person is the right thing to do on the factsand in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that
need to be considered is whether the accused wasarrested during investigations when that person
perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the
evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigatingofficer does not find it necessary to arrest an
accused person during investigations, a strong case
should be made out for placing that person injudicial custody after a charge sheet is filed.
Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the
accused was participating in the investigations to
the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was
not absconding or not appearing when required by
the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not
hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due
to some genuine and expressed fear of being
victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would
need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also28/05/2018 23:02:20 :::HCHP
6necessary for the judge to consider whether the
accused is a first-time offender or has been accused
of other offences and if so, the nature of such
offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty
or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also.
an extremely important factor and even Parliament
has taken notice of it by incorporating an
Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to
incarceration has been taken by Parliament byinserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to
be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an
application for remanding a suspect or an accusedperson to police custody or judicial custody. There
are several reasons for this including maintaining
the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor
that person might be, the requirements of Article21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is
enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to socialand other problems as noticed by this Court in In
Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons.”
9. By now it is well settled that gravity alone cannot be a
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 Central Bureau of
Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49; has been held
as under:-
28/05/2018 23:02:20 :::HCHP
7
“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 suchcases, “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 hisliberty 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 anyimprisonment before conviction has a substantial
punitive content and it would be improper for any
court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval offormer 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 ataste of imprisonment as a lesson.”
10. 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 also, normal rule is of bail
28/05/2018 23:02:20 :::HCHP
8
and not jail. Apart from above, 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.
11. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus 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 theoffence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(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.
12. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for
grant of bail and as such, order dated 21.5.2018 is made absolute
subject to petitioner furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) with one local surety in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, besides the
following conditions:
(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of
interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the28/05/2018 23:02:20 :::HCHP
9trial 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 him/her from disclosing such facts tothe Court or the Police Officer; and
(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the
prior permission of the Court.
(e) He shall surrender passport, if any, held by her.
13. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or
violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating
agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.
14. 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 petition alone.
The petition stands accordingly disposed of.
Copy dasti.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
May 28, 2018
(vikrant)
28/05/2018 23:02:20 :::HCHP