SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manjit Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 July, 2018


                       Cr.MP(M) No. 811 of 2018 
                                             Decided on: 10th July, 2018

Manjit Kumar ….Petitioner



State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent


The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1       Yes.    

For the petitioner:       Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.

Mandeep Chandel, Advocate. 

For the respondent/State: 

r to
Mr. Ashwani Sharma and Mr. P.K. 

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

SI   Shiv   Kumar,   Police   Station   Nadaun,

District Hamirpur, H.P.

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).

  The   present   bail   application   has   been   moved   by   the

petitioner   under   Section   439   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure   for

releasing him on bail, in case FIR No. 367 of 2018, dated 25.05.2018,

under   Sections   354,   354­B,   506   IPC   and   Section   67(A)   of   IT   Act,

registered in Police Station, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, 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

resident   of   the   place   and   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

25.05.2018, the prosecutrix (name withheld) made a written complaint

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

10/07/2018 23:01:46 :::HCHP

to the police stating that she is pursuing Computer course from GTI,

Nadaun.   On 10.05.2018, at about 01:15 p.m., when she was sitting

alone in her class, the petitioner came inside the class and showed her


vulgar photos in his mobile and she saw her face in those photos.  The

petitioner   threatened   the   prosecutrix   to   defame   her.     As   per   the

prosecutrix,   the   photos   were   morphed.     Thereafter,   the   petitioner

started   clicking   her   photos   and   inappropriately  touched.     The

prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother and on the subsequent

day   when   the   petitioner   was   asked   why   he   did   this,   he   again

threatened to get the photos viral.   On the  basis of the complaint, so

made by the prosecutrix, a case was registered and the investigation

ensued.  Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161

Cr.P.C.   and   on   25.05.2018   the   petitioner   was   arrested.     It   was

unearthed   during   the   course   of   investigation   that   the   petitioner

uploaded   the   photos   of   the   prosecutrix   on   whatsapp,   so   his   mobile

phone   was   taken   into   possession   and   sent   to   RFSL,   Dharamshala.

Statement   of   the   prosecutrix   was   also   recorded   under   Section   164

Cr.P.C.    Investigation in the matter  is still going  on and in case  th e

petitioner   is   enlarged   on   bail   he   may   tamper   with   the   prosecution

evidence and flee from justice.  Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that

the bail application 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 is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper

10/07/2018 23:01:46 :::HCHP

with the prosecution nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be

released on bail.  Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General

has   argued   that   in   case   the   petitioner   is   released   on   bail,   he   may


tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice.

The petitioner has committed a serious offence, thus 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, so he be released on bail.  

7. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that the

petitioner   is   neither   in   a   position   to   tamper   with   the   prosecution

evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is resident of the

place, considering the nature of the offence and also the overall aspects

of the case, which have come on record, and the fact that the petitioner

cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, the present is

a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, is

required to be exercised in his favour.  Under these circumstances, it is

ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in case FIR No. 367 of

2018,   dated   25.05.2018,   under   Sections   354,   354­B,   506   IPC   and

Section 67(A) of IT Act,   registered in Police Station, Nadaun, District

Hamirpur,   H.P.,   on   his   furnishing  personal   bond   to   the   tune   of

`25,000/­  (rupees  twenty  five  thousand only)  with  one surety  in the

like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is

granted subject to the following conditions:

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

10/07/2018 23:01:46 :::HCHP

(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.

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

     Copy dasti.

            (Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
 10  July, 2018                  

10/07/2018 23:01:46 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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