SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Veena vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 13 December, 2017


Cr.MP(M) No. 1446 of 2017

Decided on: 13th December, 2017


Veena ….Petitioner

State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent


The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

For the petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate.

For the respondent/State: Mr. Virender K. Verma, Addl. AG, with
r Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. AG.

ASI Sukh Dev Raj, Police Station

Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.


Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).

The present bail application has been moved by the

petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for

releasing her on bail, in the event of her arrest, in case FIR No. 223

of2013, dated 07.09.2013, under Sections 366A, 376 of IPC, Section

3(1)(XII) of SC ST Act and Sections 4 and 17 of POCSO Act,

registered at Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.

2. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner

is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, so she

may be released on bail.


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

14/12/2017 23:05:15 :::HCHP

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

07.09.2013 the prosecutrix (name withheld) moved a complaint to the

police alleging therein that accused Sonu asked her for having


friendship and on 01.09.2013 he asked her to come to Nabahi bazaar,

as he had got phone and clothes for the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix

alongwith her younger sister came to Nabahi bazaar and accused Sonu

took them in a vehicle, in which his jija and sister (co-accused) were

also traveling. The accused persons, at Naghla nallah, gave twenty

rupees and phone of the prosecutrix to her younger sister and told her

to go home. Thereafter the petitioner and co-accused took the

prosecutrix to a room at Chandigarh, where accused Sonu committed

sexual intercourse with her. On 05.09.2013, the petitioner and co-

accused made the prosecutrix to board a bus alongwith accused Sonu

and she was sent back to her home. As per the prosecutrix, the

petitioner and co-accused allured her to come with them and accused

Sonu committed sexual intercourse with her against her will. On the

basis of the complaint, so made by the prosecutrix, police machinery

was set into motion and a case came to be registered against the

petitioner and co-accused. The prosecutrix was medically examined

and it was opined by the doctor did not rule out possibility of sexual

intercourse. The statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. The spot map was prepared and the statements of

the witnesses were recorded. Police also went to the room at

14/12/2017 23:05:15 :::HCHP

Chandigarh where accused Sonu sexually assaulted the prosecutrix

and spot map whereof was also prepared. Police effected different

recoveries and the same were sent for forensic analysis. During the


course of investigation the petitioner absconded and she was declared

as proclaimed offender. Police presented the challan in the learned

Trial Court and the learned Trial Court acquitted the co-accused.

Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application of the

petitioner may be rejected.

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 innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present

case. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued

that the petitioner is a proclaimed offender and the matter is pending

before the learned Trial Court against her. He has further argued that

on 06.03.2015 challan against the petitioner was presented under

Section 299 Cr.P.C. and supplementary challan was presented on

05.05.2015. The petitioner is a proclaimed offender and she was

accomplice in the present case. He has prayed that the bail application

of the petitioner may be dismissed.

6. At this moment, taking into consideration the overall facts,

which have come in the present case, the fact that the petitioner wants

14/12/2017 23:05:15 :::HCHP

appear in the learned Trial Court, the other two co-accused involved in

the present case have already been acquitted and the petitioner is a

lady, not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, and


other material came on record, this Court orders that interim order,

dated 27.11.2017, issued in her favour will continue in force till

18.12.2017, on the same terms and conditions, and on or before this

date she may move appropriate application before the learned Trail

Court, as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

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

Copy dasti.

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
13th December, 2017 Judge

14/12/2017 23:05:15 :::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