SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Radhe Shyam vs State Of H.P on 16 July, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP (M) No. 868/2018

.

Date of decision: 16.7.2018

Radhe Shyam …… Petitioner
Vs.

State of H.P. ….. Respondent

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the petitioner: Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Additional
Advocate General with Mr.
Bhupinder Thakur, Deputy
Advocate General.
ASI Mohan Joshi, Investigating

Officer, Police Station Janjehli,
District Mandi, H.P.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan (Oral)

The petitioner has sought regular bail in case FIR

No. 42/2018, dated 9.6.2018, registered at Police Station,

Janjehli, District Mandi, H.P. under Sections 363, 366, 376,

120-B IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

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

17/07/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP
…2…

2 The respondent-State has produced the record of the

investigation and has filed the status report.

.

3 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

have also gone through the record of the investigation carefully.

4 While opposing the bail application, the learned

Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the

charges against the petitioner are extremely serious and,

therefore, he should not be granted bail.

5 Undoubtedly, the petitioner has been arrayed as an

co-accused for offences, which are extremely serious in nature,

but then the role attributed to him even as per the contents of

the FIR is that he only being a Taxi driver had ferried both the

main accused as also the prosecutrix. The petitioner being a

Taxi driver obviously cannot be attributed to any motive or

having any knowledge of inter se relation between the main

accused and the prosecutrix. Moreover, even as per the FIR, the

petitioner has only been charged with an offence punishable

under Section 120-B IPC and not with substantive offences of

the FIR, for which there are no allegations against him.

6 Apart from that, it is by now well settled that gravity

alone cannot be decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing

17/07/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP
…3…

factors are required to be balanced by the Court while exercising

its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble

.

Supreme Court that the object of bail is to secure the

appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable

amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor

preventative.

7 Having said so, I find this to be a fit case where the

petitioner ought to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail

petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released

on bail in case FIR No. 42/2018, dated 9.6.2018, registered at

Police Station, Janjehli, District Mandi, H.P. under Sections

363, 366, 376, 120-B IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on his furnishing

personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the

like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Mandi, District Mandi, with 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
application;

17/07/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP

…4…

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

.

manner whatsoever;

(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;

(iv) He shall not leave the territory of India without

prior permission of the Court.

8 Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
r Class, Mandi,

District Mandi, is directed to comply with the directions issued

by this Court vide communication No. HHC.VIG./Misc.

Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.

9 Any observation made hereinabove 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 hereinabove. The petition stands disposed of.

Copy dasti.

16th July, 2018 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
(pankaj) Judge

17/07/2018 23:02:33 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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