SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shiv Singh Alias Shiva vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 November, 2018


            CrMP(M) No. 1477 of 2018


                Decided on:    20.11.2018

Shiv Singh alias Shiva …Petitioner


State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent


The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? 

For the petitioner:      Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Additional Advocate

General,   with   Mr.   Raju   Ram   Rahi,
Deputy Advocate General.

Ms.Rita   Insp/SHO,   WPS,   Baddi,
present in person. 

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.(oral) 

This   petition   under   Section  439  of   the   Code   of

Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’)   has

been   filed   for   enlarging   the   petitioner   on   bail,   who   is   in

22/11/2018 22:56:51 :::HCHP

judicial custody since 18th August, 2018, in case FIR No. 29

of 2018, dated 2nd August, 2018, under Sections 363 and 366


of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’)

and   under   Sections   8,   17   and   18   of   the   Protection   of

Children   from   Sexual   Offences   Act,   2012   (hereinafter

referred   to   as   ‘POCSO   Act),   registered   at   Women   Police

2. to
Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P. 

Brief   facts   of   the   case   are   that   a   boy   Sanjeev

Kumar had allured a minor prosecutrix, aged about 15 years

6 months, to bring cash of Rs.2,00,000/­ from her house and

to accompany him to Kalka Railway Station and thereafter,

at various places at Dehli and Jaipur. As per statement of

prosecutrix, on 31st  July, 2018, Sanjeev Kumar had asked

her to bring money from her home and to accompany him

and   during   the   night   of   31st  July,   2018   and   present

petitioner   Shiv   Singh   (Shiva)   had   helped   the   accused

Sanjeev Kumar in kidnapping her to Kalka Railway Station

from village Balyana, i.e. native place of the prosecutrix by

taking both of them on his motor cycle. On the basis of call

22/11/2018 22:56:51 :::HCHP

detail   report   of   Sanjeev   Kumar   and   present   petitioner

Shiva,   statement   of   prosecutrix   stands   substantiated.


During investigating, petitioner was produced in the Police

Station on 18th  August, 2018, by his father. Thereafter, on

being   identified   by   the   prosecutrix,   he   was   arrested   and

after remaining in police custody till 21st  August, 2018, he

3.  to
has been sent in judicial custody.

No doubt, Section 29 of the POCSO Act, provides

presumption   as   to   commission   or   attempt   to   commit   or

abetment   of   offences   under   Sections   3,5,   7   and   9   of   the

POCSO Act against the accused, unless contrary is proved,

however, at the same time, in commission of offence, role of

petitioner/accused is also relevant for considering his plea of

enlarging   him   on   bail.   There   is   no   allegation   of   the

prosecutrix against petitioner Shiv Kumar, except that he

had   taken   her   along   with   accused   Sanjeev   Kumar   to   the

Kalka   Railway   Station   on   his   motor   cycle.   Neither   before

that nor thereafter, any link of petitioner Shiv Kumar with

Sanjeev Kumar has been pointed out in the record produced

22/11/2018 22:56:51 :::HCHP

by the State. The only reason for opposition of the bail is

that   the   petitioner   is   a   clever   person   and   in   case   of   his


release on bail,  he may  threat the witnesses  and there  is

public   resentment   against   the   offence   committed   by   the

accused in the area.

4. As is evident from the record and status report

filed by the State, main accused is Sanjeev Kumar, who is

absconding, whereas the role of Shiv Kumar is too limited

and   further   he,   himself,   had   submitted   him   to   the

Investigating Agency for interrogation and it is not a case

that he was running away from the Investigating Agency,

rather he along with his father had appeared in the Police

Station on 18th  August, 2018 on his own  volition  and had

made himself available for further investigation resulting to

his   arrest.   So   far   as   the   apprehension   of   threatening   the

witnesses is concerned, a condition can be imposed upon the

petitioner and for violation whereof, he will have to face the

cancellation   of   bail,   for   which   Prosecution   Agency,   if

occasion arises, can approach this Court at any time.

22/11/2018 22:56:51 :::HCHP

5. Keeping   in   view   the   role   of   the   petitioner,

allegations   of   the   prosecutrix   against   him   and   his


subsequent conduct, I find that it is a fit case for releasing

him on bail.  Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be released

on bail in case FIR No. 29 of 2018, dated 2 nd  August, 2018,

under Sections 363/ 366 of IPC and under Sections 8, 17, 18

of   the   POCSO   Act,   registered   at   Women   Police   Station,

Baddi, District Solan, H.P., if not required in any other case,

subject   to   his   furnishing   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of

₹50,000/­  with   one   surety   in   the   like   amount,   to   the

satisfaction of learned Trial Court. 

6. Petitioner   shall   further   abide   by   the   following


(i)  That   the   petitioner   shall   make   himself

available   to   the   police   or   any   other
investigating   agency   or   Court   in   the
present case as and when required;

(ii) That   the   petitioner   shall   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
from disclosing such facts to Court or to
any   police   officer   or   tamper   with   the
evidence.   He shall not, in any manner,

22/11/2018 22:56:51 :::HCHP

try to overawe or influence or intimidate
the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) That   he   shall   not   obstruct   the  smooth


progress of the trial;

(iv) That the petitioner shall not commit the
offence similar to the offence to which he

is accused or suspected;

(v) That the petitioner shall not misuse his
liberty in any manner;

(vi) That   the   petitioner   shall   not   jump   over
the   bail   and   shall   inform,   in   writing,
regarding any  change of address, if any,
r from   the   present   place   of   residence,   in

advance, to Police Station Baddi, District
Solan, H.P.

7. It   will   be   open   to   the   prosecution   to   apply   for

imposing   and/or   to   the   trial   Court   to   impose   any   other

condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts

and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.  

8. In   case   the   petitioner   violates   any   condition

imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled.  In

such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent

Court of law for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

9. Learned   trial   Court   is   directed   to   ensure

compliance of the directions issued by the High Court vide

22/11/2018 22:56:51 :::HCHP

communication No. HHC/VIG/Misc.Instructions /93­IV.7139

dated 18th March, 2013, as applicable.  


10. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore

shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and is

strictly confined for the disposal of this bail application filed

under Section 439 CrPC.


Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

Copy dasti.

          (Vivek Singh Thakur)
November 20, 2018


22/11/2018 22:56:51 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


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