SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

In The High Court Of Himachal … vs State Of H.P on 11 June, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP (M) No.605 of 2018.

Decided on: 11th June, 2018.

__
Prem Lal …Petitioner.

Versus
State of H.P. …Respondent.
Coram

.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner : Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Ashwani Sharma with Mr. P.K. Bhatti,

Additional Advocate Generals.

ASI Keshav Ram, Police Station Arki, District
Solan, present in person.

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. 31 of 2018, dated 1.4.2018, under Sections 376, 506

and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Arki, 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 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

1.4.2018, a complaint, under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, was received in Police Station, Arki, District Solan, stating therein

that the complainant is aged about 36 years and is a permanent resident of

village Baggi and Post Office Baggi, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, and the

marriage of the complainant was solemnized with one Shri Dharam Pal in the

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

11/06/2018 23:01:13 :::HCHP
2

year 2004, but unfortunately husband of the complainant was expired in a

motor vehicle accident in the year 2010. The husband of the complainant

was a transporter and after his death, she carried on the transport business

of her husband. In the year 2010-2011, petitioner was working in the office

.

of “The Mangal Land Looser Co-operative Society”, the petitioner had been

assuring the complainant that he will extend all help to the complainant in her

transport business. In the year 2012, the petitioner started telling her that he

intends to marry with her by saying that he is still bachelor. Initially, she did

not take his talk seriously, but when he continuously made such offer and had

been helping her, then she developed belief that petitioner is a good person

and marrying with him may provide good life to her and her child, namely,

Nikhil. In the year 2013, when the petitioner became sure that the

complainant have blind faith in him and believed that he is a bachelor and will

marry her, the petitioner tried to establish physical relation and have sexual

intercourse with her. The complainant shown her unwillingness and requested

the petitioner that physical relations should be established only after

marriage, but the petitioner despite of unwillingness of the complainant, had

sexual intercourse with her. The consent obtained by the petitioner from the

complainant for sexual intercourse was not given voluntarily by the

complainant. At that time, the petitioner was already married and had no

intention to marry with her. Under these circumstances, the complainant was

not in a position to understand the nature and consequences of the consent

of sexual intercourse. The petitioner had been taking money from the

complainant and assured that whatever profit will be earned, the same will be

paid to her and her child. In the month of October, 2014, the complainant

11/06/2018 23:01:13 :::HCHP
3
went to the house of the petitioner at village Bhalag, where some villagers

told that petitioner is already marked and has a wife and children, but when

the complainant made inquiry from the petitioner and then he told that his

marriage was dissolved by way of divorce. The petitioner has indulged in

.

sexual intercourse with the complainant after obtaining her consent by

playing fraud. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application

may be dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no fruitful

purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner 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 released on bail. On the other hand, the learned

Additional Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration the

way the offence was committed and the seriousness of the offence, the bail

application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

5. Heard. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the parties and analyzing the facts, which have come on record, including the

business transactions and other material, including the age of the prosecutrix

as well as age of the petitioner, 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, as he is neither in a position to tamper with the

prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. Accordingly, the

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

by the police of Police Station, Arki, District Solan, H.P., in connection with

FIR No.31 of 2018, dated 1.4.2018, under Sections 376, 506 and 323 of the

11/06/2018 23:01:13 :::HCHP
4

Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Arki, District Solan,

H.P., 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 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 facts of the case so as
to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to

the Investigating Officer or Court.

(iv) In case, the petitioner tries to tamper with the
prosecution evidence, the bail order is liable to be
recalled.

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

Copy dasti.

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
th
11 June, 2018 Judge

(CS)

11/06/2018 23:01:13 :::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