SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vinod Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 28 December, 2018


Cr.M.P (M) No. 1435 of 2018

Date of decision: 28.12.2018


Vinod Kumar. …Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh. …Respondent

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Petitioner: Mr. S.K. Banyal, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr.Shiv Pal Manhans, Additional Advocate
rt General, with Mr.R.P. Singh and Mr.Raju Ram
Rahi, Deputy Advocate Generals.

SI Manmohan Singh, Police Station Sarkaghat,
District Mandi, H.P. present in person along with

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral)

This petition has been filed by petitioner seeking regular bail

under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 19 of 2018, dated 28.1.2018 under

Sections 376, 451, 354 and 354A of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’),

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

2. Fresh status report stands filed. Earlier also case was listed for

consideration and status reports were filed, wherein it was stated that report

from State Forensic Science Laboratory, with respect to DNA profiling had not

been received and therefore, case was adjourned for today, enabling the

Investigating Agency to obtain Chemical Analysis report from Forensic

Science Laboratory. On 14.12.2018, learned Deputy Advocate General was

also directed to take up the matter with the State Forensic Science Laboratory

for explaining the reasons for delay in furnishing its report with respect to DNA

profiling, as the cross-examination of prosecutrix has been deferred only on

the ground that clothes sent for DNA profiling, have not been received back.

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

29/12/2018 20:02:45 :::HCHP
2 Cr.M.P (M) No. 1435 of 2018

3. Along with status report, letter dated 21.12.2018 written by

Additional Superintendent of Police to Director, State Forensic Science

Laboratory, Junga has also annexed, wherein request for supplying DNA


profile reports on priority has been made. Learned Deputy Advocate General

also informs that letter from office of Advocate General was also sent to the

Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory and in turn on telephonic

conservation, Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory has apprized that

on account of having work load chemical analysis with respect to DNA

profiling is being delayed.

The Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh

is directed to look into the matter personally and ensure to make all necessary

arrangements in the State Forensic Laboratory for timely chemical analysis of

DNA profiling, as it has come in notice of the Court that in large number of

cases due to delay in furnishing the reports by State Forensic Science

Laboratory, either recording of evidence is being deferred or supplementary

challan is being preferred at the verge of completion of trial.

5. So far as present case is concerned, it is stated in the status

report that on 28.1.2018 at about 11:00 P.M. 26 years old complainant/victim

had approached the Police at Police Station Sarkaghat along with her parents

and had reported that on that day at about 7:00 P.M., when she was at home

alone as her mother-in-law was not in home and her husband is serving in

Private Sector at Baddi, her co-villager Vinod Kumar had come to her house

and started teasing her and had kissed her and thereafter had asked to put off

her clothes, but on her refusal to do so, he had left her house and thereafter

she informed the incident to her husband on telephone and to her mother-in-

law on her arrival at home and also she informed her parents telephonically

and thereafter along with parents she had come to lodge the report. It is also

stated in the status report that on 29.1.2018 complainant/victim had submitted

29/12/2018 20:02:45 :::HCHP
3 Cr.M.P (M) No. 1435 of 2018

a complaint alleging therein that Vinod Kumar petitioner had violated her

person on 28.1.2018, but she had reported only about teasing, as she

couldnot report the entire episode on account of shame. Thereafter, Section


376 IPC was also added in complaint lodged by the victim and

petitioner/accused was arrested on 30.1.2018 at about 2:25 P.M. and since

then he is in custody.

6. Now trial has commenced and statements of five witnesses,

including victim, her father Amar Singh, her mother-in-law Urmila Devi, Doctor

Nidhi Sharma and Ward Member Geeta Devi have been recorded. Cross-

examination of victim has been deferred for want of availability of her clothes

produced by her to the Investigating Officer, which have been sent for DNA


7. Victim/complainant has supported the prosecution case in her

statement, whereas her mother-in-law has not lent support to the prosecution

case. Father of victim has also been declared hostile for not supporting the

prosecution case on one point.

8. The cumulative effect of the statements of prosecution witnesses

are yet to be assessed by the trial Court, therefore, I am refraining from

commenting upon the merits of the case. However, in aforesaid

circumstances, it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail and therefore,

petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in case FIR No. 19/18, dated

28.1.2018, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one

surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, subject to 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

29/12/2018 20:02:45 :::HCHP
4 Cr.M.P (M) No. 1435 of 2018

tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try
to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution

(iii) that he shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the



(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


(vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail;

(v) that he shall not leave the territory of Himachal Pradesh without
prior information. He shall inform the Police/Court about change
in address, if any, in future.

9. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to

the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioners as deemed

necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of


10. In case the petitioners violate any conditions 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.

11. Learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to comply with the

directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc.

Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.

12. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not affect

the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal

of the bail application.

13. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Copy Dasti.

(Vivek Singh Thakur),
28th December, 2018 Judge.

29/12/2018 20:02:45 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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