IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Hon'ble Judges: M.R. Verma, J.
H.K. Justa – Appellants
Vs.
State of H.P. Respondent:
Cr. M.P. (M) No. 767 of 2003 [Alongwith Cr. M.P. (M) No. 787 of 2003]
Decided On: 09.07.2003
Section 438 - Criminal Procedure - Sections 363, 366A, 376, 342, 376/511, 506/34 IPC - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 363, 366A, 376, 342, 376/511, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and their interpretations in the context of the case. The court emphasized the necessity of balancing individual rights and the operation of the criminal justice system when considering anticipatory bail applications.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of kidnapping, rape, and confinement of two minor girls by the accused. The accused sought anticipatory bail, claiming innocence and false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was prima facie evidence of the accused's involvement in grave offenses, and their interrogation was necessary. The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of A-1 and deferred the decision on A-2's application, directing him to join the investigation.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the involvement of the accused in the alleged offenses, the necessity of their interrogation, and the grant of anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to balance individual rights and the operation of the criminal justice system when considering anticipatory bail applications. It also highlighted the importance of not allowing anticipatory bail to prejudice the investigation or the criminal justice system.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of A-1 and deferred the decision on A-2's application, directing him to join the investigation.
M.R. Verma, J.
1. Since both these petitions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) arise out of the same FIR No. 53/2003, dated 1.7.2003, under Sections 363, 366A, 376, 342, 376/511, 506/34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Rajgarh, therefore, are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The case of the prosecution against the Petitioners-accused H.K. Justa and Manoj Chauhan (hereafter referred to as A-1 and A-2 respectively) is that two girls, cousin sisters by relation, (hereafter referred to as M and R), residents of village Bakhota, were studying in plus one in a school at Rajgarh. Date of birth of M is 29.4.1987 and that of R is 20.9.1986. On 28.6.2003, at 8 a.m., they left for their school but did not return home in the evening. Father of R thought that they might have gone to the house of some relative. The next day was Sunday. On 30.6.2003, one Sulakshna, a class mate of M and R informed the father of R, the informant in the case, that M and R had not attended the school on 30.6.2003. Their family members carried out a search for them and came to know that both of them were at the residence of A-1. Informant searched the girls at the address of A-1 on 1.7.2003 but his residential premises were found locked. The matter was thereafter reported by the father of R to the police, where FIR initially under Sections 363 and 366A IPC was recorded and the investigation in the matter followed. On investigation so far carried out, it was found that A-1 had gone to the house of uncle of M, namely, Balbir Singh, and continued to visit his house for some time and had also been contacting his family members on telephone. A-1 had told Balbir Singh that he had divorced his wife and wanted to marry a girl of younger age. This desire A-1 had conveyed to M also telephonically and had been alluring her to marry him, and that he would give her ornaments and a vehicle to facilitate her studies. He further assured her that he would arrange employment for her and R. He invited them to come to Shimla. On 28.6.2003, as per the instructions given by A-1, M and R, instead of going to the school, went to a place called Pabyana where A-1, A-2 and Prem Dutt Pandit, a co-accused in the case alongwilh a Maruti Car No. HP-03-1006 were present. A-1 inquired from the girls whether they had informed their family members about their programs and the girls replied in the negative. Thereafter, in the aforesaid car driven by A-2 they were brought to the residence of A-1 at Sanjauli. On the night intervening 28th and 29th June, 2003, A-1 committed rape on M. A-2 attempted to commit rape on R, but because of resistance by her, could not succeed in committing sexual intercourse with her. On the following morning, A-2 and Prem Dutt left the house of A-1. A-1, who had received information about the death of his father, told the girls that eatables were available in the house and they could prepare whatever they wanted to eat. He further asked them that in case there is any telephonic call, they would note only the number of the caller and not attend the call and if they attempted to do anything contrary, that would not be in their interest. Thereafter, A-1 left to his home village after locking his residential premises thereby confining M and R in his residence. M, and R remained confined in the residential premises of A-1 till 2.7.2003, when at about 11.30 a.m., A-1 took them to Ridge, The Mall, Shimla. A-2 was also present there. A-1 told M and R that if anyone made queries from them, they would tell that their parents did not provide them food and beat them and not to divulge to anyone that he had brought them to Shimla. A-1 wanted to prepare affidavits of M and R about this version but when it transpired that each one of them was of 16 years of age, the person arranged for typing of the affidavits refused to prepare the affidavits. A-1 then took both the girls to Additional Superintendent of Police, Shi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.