SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(HP) 1231

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Karma Lama – Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. M.P.(M) No. 1143 of 2014
Decided on: 9th October, 2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Jitender P. Ranote, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Parul Negi, Dy. A.G. Tilak Chand, SI/SHO, P.S. Jhakri, Distt. Shimla.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seriousness of allegations, potential threat to witnesses, and likelihood of evidence tampering are crucial factors in determining the grant of bail in cases involving sexual offences.

Headnote:

Bail - Sexual Offences - The court granted bail to the petitioner in a case involving charges under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The court considered the lack of serious allegations against the petitioner and the absence of threat to prosecution witnesses or evidence tampering as grounds for granting bail.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving charges under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecutrix alleged that she was taken to a secluded location and raped by the petitioner and another individual.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the statements of the prosecutrix and her father did not contain serious allegations against the petitioner. It also noted that there was no indication of the petitioner posing a threat to prosecution witnesses or tampering with evidence. The petitioner's permanent residency and presumed roots in the society were also considered in granting bail.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner, the potential threat to prosecution witnesses, and the likelihood of evidence tampering.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the lack of serious allegations in the statements of the prosecutrix and her father, as well as the absence of evidence indicating a threat to prosecution witnesses or tampering.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety. The court imposed specific conditions related to cooperation with the investigation, non-inducement of witnesses, non-tampering with evidence, restriction on leaving the country, and the misuse of liberty.

Judgment

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 56 of 2013 dated 26.10.2013 registered at Police Station, Jhakri, District Shimla, under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. Records of the investigation have been made available to the Court and the learned Additional Advocate General has also filed the status report.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully.

4. The story of the prosecution is that on 20.10.2013 during day time the prosecutrix received a call on the cell phone of her mother from some Dinesh and immediately thereafter she left the house and came to Rampur in search of said person. He was traceable despite search made by the prosecutrix at Rampur, Khaneri and Jhakri. On 22.10.2013 the day of ‘Karvachauth’ when she felt thirsty, she approached a tap at Jhakri and on seeing her there, some ladies did not permit her to drink water and directed her to go to nearby deras of Gorkhas. The prosecutrix went there upto the dera of Ravinder where he was alone. It is further story of the prosecution that during night said Ravinder called the petitioner and then they took the prosecutrix in a vehicle towards Nogli where they committed rape.

5. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier on two occasions, but had withdrawn the bail applications. Now this bail application has been filed on the ground that the statement of the prosecutrix and her father have already been recorded and nothing incriminating against the petitioner has come in their testimonies recorded before the Court as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively. The copies of the statements have been annexed alongwith the petition, a perusal whereof prima-facie establishes that no serious allegations against the petitioner for the alleged offence have been made out by the prosecutrix and her father.

6. It is not the case of the prosecutrix that in the event of the petitioner being enlarged on bail, he would threaten the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. Even otherwise, it has been informed by the Investigating Officer that now only the statements of police officials remained to be recorded and there is no reason to believe that these witnesses would be disassociated by the petitioner in the event of his being released on bail.

7. I find this to be a fit case where the discretion of bail ought to be granted to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is permanent resident of Village and Post Office Jhakri, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla and presumed to have roots in the Society.

8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 56 of 2013 dated 26.10.2013 registered at Police Station, Jhakri, District Shimla, under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. with the following conditions:

(i) That the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Agency;

(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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or threaten the witnesses;

(iv) that the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court;

(v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.

Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rampur, District Shimla is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No. HHC.VIG/Misc. Instructions/93-IV. 7139 dated 18.3.2013.

9. Any observation ma



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top