IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 2201 of 2019
Reserved on: 30.12.2019

.

Decided on: 01.01.2020

Parmod Singh Parmar ….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent

Coram

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

For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.
Rakesh Chaudhary, Advocate.

For the respondent/State: Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans and Mr. P.K. Bhatti,
Addl. AGs.

Inspector Indu Devi, SHO, Women Police
Station Una, District Una, H.P.

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).

The present bail application has been maintained by the

petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his

release, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 135 of 2019, dated

16.11.2019, under Sections 376, 354, 292, 420, 389, 506, 498A, 465, 468,

471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and Sections 65, 66A, 66E, 67 and 67A

of Information Technology Act, 2000, registered in Police Station Gagret,

District Una, 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

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

03/01/2020 20:26:04 :::HCHP
2

permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the

prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful

purpose will be served by sending him behind the bars, so he be released

.

on bail.

3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on the

prosecutrix (name withheld) moved an application under Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Amb, wherein she alleged that in the year 2018 she was pursuing B.Tech

(Civil) from Hydro Engineering College Nagrota Bagwan and in a trade fair

she met Shubham Parmar (co-accused). Subsequently, they fell in love and

the co-accused proposed her for marriage, but he prosecutrix refused, as

she was only 20 years of age and wanted to marry with the consent of her

parents. Despite the suggestion of the prosecutrix that the co-accused

should approach her parents, the co-accused enticed her to marry him

without the consent of her parents. The prosecutrix on persistent enticing

agreed and during the month of February, 2019, the co-accused told her

that he has made all the arrangements for solemnizing marriage. On

10.02.2019 the co-accused took the prosecutrix to Naddi, where they stayed

in a Hotel, i.e., Naddi Hills and the co-accused told her that they would

marry tomorrow. During the night the co-accused started to have sexual

intercourse with the prosecutrix, but she refused. The co-accused did not

stop and started threatening the prosecutrix that he would kill himself and

03/01/2020 20:26:04 :::HCHP
3

also took out a knife. Later on, the co-accused forcibly committed sexual

intercourse with the prosecutrix and she could not raise hue and cry due to

fear. The co-accused occutly, with malafide intentions, prepared a MMS of

.

the forcible sexual intercourse. On the subsequent morning the co-accused

turned topsy-turvy and refused for marriage due to some unavoidable

circumstances. The co-accused assured the prosecutrix that he will marry

her in few days. The prosecutrix being optimistic that the co-accused will

marry her, started her routine life despite the stigma suffered by her. Later

on, the prosecutrix came to know that the co-accused, through fake

account, uploaded some screen shots of the video (MMS), which was

prepared by the co-accused. The co-accused also sent the MMS to four

students of the college and those students, on being requested by the

prosecutrix, deleted the said MMS. The prosecutrix approached the co-

accused and asked as to why he is doing all this, on this the co-accused

told her that he would defame her. In March, 2019, the co-accused asked

the prosecutrix to accompany her to Nagrota City and when she refused, he

started threatening her that he would circulate the MMS. The prosecutrix

under the fear that the co-accused will make viral the MMS accompanied

the petitioner to same hotel at Naddi, where the petitioner threatened her

that he will circulate the MMS and committed sexual intercourse with her

against her wish. Thereafter, the prosecutrix strictly refused to accompany

the co-accused, so the co-accused uploaded the MMS on social media, so as

03/01/2020 20:26:04 :::HCHP
4

to tarnish the image of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix disclosed the entire

episode to her parents, so the mother of the prosecutrix contacted the co-

accused and his father (petitioner herein) and she also met the co-accused

.

in village Deoli. The co-accused, on being coming to know about the entire

narrative, instead of reproofing the co-accused, started leveling false

allegations against the prosecutrix by using disparaging words and he also

threatened to kill her and her mother. Thereafter, the matter was brought

to the notice of the police and in presence of the police the co-accused

admitted his guilt and the petitioner (father of the co-accused) said that he

would solemnize the marriage of the co-accused with the prosecutrix soon.

The co-accused executed a mafinama (written apology) and on 09.05.2019

at Mata Bagula Mukhi Mandir VPO Gagret, Tehsil Ghjanari, Distt. Una, the

marriage of the co-accused and the prosecutrix was solemnized and the

marriage was duly registered. Thereafter, the co-accused and the

prosecutrix started living in their parental house, as the co-accused told the

prosecutrix that the petitioner refused to keep them. After a short stint of

2-3 days’ cordial relation, the co-accused started maltreating, torturing and

beating the prosecutrix and on being asked the co-accused told her that he

married her only to escape the clutches of law. On 30.05.2019 the co-

accused thrashed the prosecutrix and she came to her parental house and

subsequently the matter was reported to the police. Again the co-accused

tendered apology before the police. The prosecutrix went to Chandigarh for

03/01/2020 20:26:04 :::HCHP
5

a training where on 10.07.2019 co-accused came in an inebriated condition

and abused the prosecutrix. The petitioner time and again openly said that

he married the prosecutrix only to wriggle out from the criminal

.

proceedings. The prosecutrix, after many endeavors of reconciling the

matter, was compelled to approach the police, but the police did not register

the case, so she made an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the

Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, Una. The said

application was sent to the police, whereupon a case was registered and the

investigation commenced. The prosecutrix was medically examined and

scientific samples were preserved for analysis. Statement of the prosecutrix

was recorded under Section164 SectionCr.P.C. It has come in the police

investigation that the co-accused under the pretext of marrying the

prosecutrix sexually molested her and also managed to prepare a MMS

secretly, which he circulated. Thereafter, the co-accused started

blackmailing the prosecutrix and committed sexual intercourse with the

prosecutrix. On 09.05.2019 the co-accused solemnized marriage with the

prosecutrix, but the petitioner refused to keep them in his house. Police

also recorded the statements of the witnesses and procured the relevant

records from the concerned hotel. During the course of investigation it was

unearthed that the Iphone, through which he made the MMS, was got

replaced by him at Chandigarh, and the company had destroyed the same.

Scientific samples were sent to RFSL, Chandigarh. The investigation

03/01/2020 20:26:04 :::HCHP
6

further reveals that the co-accused uploaded the MMS, through fake ID, on

facebook, instagram and whatsapp. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail

application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner has committed a

.

serious crime by threatening the prosecutrix with the co-accused. In case

the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the

prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the bail application

of the petitioner be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,

learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the

record, including the police report, carefully.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that

the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has

further argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and

neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a

position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose

will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, so the petition be

allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned

Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a

serious crime and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the

prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the

bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

03/01/2020 20:26:04 :::HCHP
7

6. In rebuttal the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has

argued that the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police,

especially when noting is to be recovered from him and also considering the

.

limited role of the petitioner in the alleged offence, so the application be

allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

7. At this stage, considering the limited role of the petitioner in the

alleged offence, being the father of the main accused, the fact that he is not

in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to

flee from justice, as he is permanent resident of the place, the age of the

petitioner, who is 51 years of age, the fact that the petitioner is ready and

willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, the fact

that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all required by the

police, as he is co-accused, being father of the main accused, joining and

co-operating in the investigation and also considering the overall facts,

which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage,

this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to

admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, is required to be

exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is

ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 135 of

2019, dated 16.11.2019, under Sections 376, Section354, Section292, Section420, Section389, Section506,

Section498A, Section465, Section468, Section471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and Sections 65, Section66A,

Section66E, Section67 and Section67A of Information Technology Act, 2000, registered in

03/01/2020 20:26:04 :::HCHP
8

Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P., shall be released on bail 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 the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the

following conditions:

(i) That the petitioner will appear before the
learned Trial Court/Police/authorities 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.

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

Copy dasti.

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
1st January, 2020 Judge
(virender)

03/01/2020 20:26:04 :::HCHP