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 17 September, 2018

Cr.MP(M) No. 1173 of 2018
Decided on : 17.9.2018


Amar Singh     …..Petitioner. 

State of H.P.              ….Respondent. 

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

For the petitioner:

r to
Whether approved for reporting? Yes. 

Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Advocate. 

For the respondent: Mr. Hemant Vaid, Addl. A.G. 

with Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Dy. A.G., for
the respondent.  


Sureshwar Thakur, J (oral)

The instant petition, has been   filed by applicant/

accused,   under   Section   439,   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   for

seeking, an order, for his being released from judicial custody,

whereat he is extantly lodged, for, his allegedly committing an

offence,   punishable   under   Sections   376,   342   of   the   Indian

Penal   Code,   in   respect   whereof,   an   FIR   No.   144   of   2018,   of,

24.5.2018,   is,   registered   with   Police   Station,   Sadar   Solan,

District Solan, H.P.  

19/09/2018 22:58:48 :::HCHP


2. The accused is suffering judicial incarceration, for,


four months.   The prosecutrix/victim is  a married  lady,  and,

has two minor children.   She is deaf and dumb. However, the

apt status report discloses qua hers not  lacking, the,  capacity

hence  for making an apt communication to her husband or to

other   members   of   her   matrimonial   home.     Contrarily,   it   is

manifest, from, a perusal of the status report, that, she could

make  communications,  through,  gestures  and  by  using    sign

language,   and,   there   is   also   disclosure   therein,   that,   her   apt

communications,   through,   gestures   and   sign   language,   were

understandable   by   the   members,   of,   her     matrimonial   home.

The   effect   of   the   aforesaid,   is,   that   the   prosecutrix   rather

cannot be construed, to, lack   the capacity to mete consent, if

any, vis­a­vis perpetration, of, sexual intercourse  upon her, by

the   bail   applicant/accused.     If   so,   she   was   enjoined,   to,

promptly report the incident, to, the police.   However, the apt

status report discloses qua about 21 days rather elapsing, since

the occurrence,  upto hers’ making apt communications, to her

mother­in­law.     Even   though   she   in   her   statement   recorded,

under,   Section   164   Cr.P.C.   she   makes   echoings,   qua,   her

within   two   days,   since   the   occurrence   rather   reporting     the

19/09/2018 22:58:48 :::HCHP

incident   to   her   mother­in­law,   yet,   the   afore   contradictions


rather   constrains   this   Court,   to   conclude,   that,   there   is   a

manifest delay, in, the reporting, of,  the incident to the police.

Neither the mother­in­law of the prosecutrix nor the latter has

meted any tangible explications qua the apt delay.   The effect

thereof is (i) qua hence the emergence of apt medical evidence

being   precluded,   (b)   nor   hence   evidence   is   forthcoming   qua

bruises, and, abrasions rather occurring on the person of the

bail applicant/accused or upon the person of the prosecutrix/

victim, with,  any vivid display qua whether prosecutrix had or

not resisted, the, sexual intercourses perpetrated upon her, by

the   bail­applicant/accused,   (ii)     thereupon   at   this   stage,   it

cannot be firmly concluded qua the sexual intercourse, which

occurred   inter­se   the   bail   applicant/accused,   and,   the

prosecutrix   being   construable   to   be   a   forcible   sexual

intercourse.   Corollary thereof is hence, the apt benefit at this

stage,  is  visitable,  upon,  the  bail applicant/ accused  qua   his

rather   with   the   consent   of   the     prosecutrix,   hence   sexually

accessing  the victim. 

3. Be that as it may, the prosecutrix, at, the end of her

statement,   recorded   under   Section   164   Cr.P.C.,   has,   made

19/09/2018 22:58:48 :::HCHP

acquiescences   qua   her   forgiving,   the,   mis­demeanor   of   the


accused,   acquiescences   whereof   ,   is,     rather   tentatively   and

prima facie may be readable qua hers consenting, vis­a­vis,  the

bail applicant hence sexually accessing her.  

4. Bearing   in   mind   the   aforesaid   factum,   this   Court

deems   it   fit   and   appropriate,   importantly,   when   the

Investigating Officer has reported that the bail petitioner, has

throughout associated, hence, in the relevant investigation, to,

hence   afford,   the   facility   of   bail   in   favour   of   the   bail

applicant/petitioner.  Moreso,   when  at   this   stage,  no   evidence

has been adduced by the prosecution, demonstrating, that in

the event of bail being granted to the bail applicant/petitioner,

there   being   every   likelihood   of   his   fleeing   from   justice   or

tampering   with   prosecution   evidence,   Accordingly,   the

indulgence of bail, is, granted to the bail applicant/petitioner,

on, the following conditions:­

i) That   he   shall   join   the   investigation,   as   and   when
required by the Investigating agency;

ii) That   he   shall   not   directly   or   indirectly   make   any
inducement,   threat   or   promise   to   any   person
acquainted   with   the   facts   of   the   case   so   as   to

19/09/2018 22:58:48 :::HCHP

dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court


or to the Police;

iii) That   he   shall  not  leave  India  without   the  previous

permission of the Court;

iv) That he shall deposit his passport, if any, with the
Police Station, concerned;

v) That in case of violation of any of the conditions, the
bail granted to the petitioner shall be forfeited and
he shall be liable to be taken into custody;

5. In   view   of   above,   petition   stand   disposed   of.   Any

observation   made   herein   above   shall   not   be   taken   as   an

expression  of  opinion  on  the  merits   of  the  case  and  the  trial

Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation

made herein above. 

Dasti Copy. 

17th September, 2018    (Sureshwar Thakur),

           (kck)                    Judge. 

19/09/2018 22:58:48 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2022 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation