SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Naresh Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 7 July, 2017


Cr. MPM No. 863 of 2017.
Decided on: 7.7.2017.

Naresh Kumar …Petitioner.


State of Himachal Pradesh … Respondent.


The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

For the petitioner. : Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondent. : Mr. Vikram Thakur, Dy. Advocate
General with C.R. Mehta, SI PS
Sadar, Solan.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J (Oral)

By way of this petition the petitoner has prayed for grant

of regular bail in FIR No. 86 of 2017 dated 3.4.2017 registered at

Police Station Sadar, District Solan under Sections 366, 376 and 506

of IPC. FIR stands lodged on a complaint so filed by the prosecutrix

to the effect that accused had established physical relations with her

on the pretext of marriage and had kept the prosecutrix in his house

for a period of 07 days. Subsequently it was revealed that accused was

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

10/07/2017 23:58:08 :::HCHP

already married. It was further the case of the complainant that after

the factum of accused being married came to her knowledge, accused


told her that he was a divorcee which fact was also incorrect.

According to her when she came to know about these facts, she

presented herself before the SDM and then went to her house. As per

the prosecutrix thereafter accused was threatening the prosecutrix as

well as her brothers and sisters. On these basis the FIR was lodged.

2. Accused was taken into custody on 4.4.2017 and he is

stated to be in judicial custody since April, 2017. Records reveal that

challan stands filed in the Court. Mr. Sudhir Thakur learned counsel

for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been implicated

in a false case which stands concocted against him by the prosecutrix

at the behest of her maternal grandmother and her maternal uncle. Mr.

Thakur has drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings which

were initiated under Section 97 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of

complaint filed by maternal grandmother of the prosecutrix and has

also drawn the attention of the Court to the statement which was

recorded before SDM Solan of the prosecutrix on 29.3.2017 in which

she had stated that respondent had not forcibly confined her at his

house. Mr. Thakur has further submitted that the petitioner even

otherwise is a permanent resident of VPO Damkari Tehsil and District

10/07/2017 23:58:08 :::HCHP

Solan and his custody is otherwise also not required because no

recovery etc. is to be effected from him and he be released on bail and


the petitioner undertakes that he will not in any manner interfere in the

course of investigation.

3. Learned Deputy Advocate General on the other hand has

submitted that as the statement of prosecutrix has not yet been

recorded it will not be prudent to release the accused on bail.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also

gone through the status report which has been filed by learned Deputy

Advocate General.

5. Records demonstrate that before the present FIR was

lodged against the accused by the prosecutrix, a complaint was filed

by the maternal grandmother of the prosecutrix on 17.3.2017 before

SDM Solan to the effect that prosecutrix had run away with the

accused at around 11:00 am on 15.3.2017 and that prosecutrix had

also took with her an amount of Rs. 50,000/- along with some

jewellary. Records further demonstrate that on 16.3.2017 there is

entry in the DDR at Police Station Solan at the behest of the

prosecutrix against her maternal grandmother and maternal uncle to

the effect that they were physically abusing her and were ill treating

her. A perusal of the said DDR also demonstrates that prosecutrix had

10/07/2017 23:58:08 :::HCHP

stated therein that she was more than 21 years of age and did not

intend to live in the house of her maternal grandmother and maternal


uncle. Lodging of FIR No. 86 of 2017 against the petitioner under

Sections 366, 376 and 506 of IPC is a subsequent event.

6. Whether or not the petitioner is guilty is yet to be

adjudicated by the learned trial court. Prima facie there appears to be

merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petitioner has been implicated in the case by the prosecutrix at the

behest of his maternal grandmother and maternal uncle. Therefore

taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of

the present case in my considered view this is fit case when the

petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, this petition

is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, on his

furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in

the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court, subject to the

following conditions:-

i) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation,
if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and
every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so,
seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate

ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper
the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

10/07/2017 23:58:08 :::HCHP

iii) He shall not 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 Court or the Police
Officer; and


iv) He shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission
of the Court.

7. It is clarified that the observations made by this Court in

this order are only for the purpose of adjudicating upon the present

bail petition and the learned trial court shall not be influenced by any

of these observations while deciding the case on merits, in the course

of trial. It shall be open for the prosecution to move this Court for

cancellation of the bail in case petitioner abuses the bail which has

been granted in his favour.

Copy dasti.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

7th July, 2017


10/07/2017 23:58:08 :::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