Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 1851
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Daulat Ram Alias Manoj - Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 790 of 2018
Decided On : 10-08-2018
Ramakant Sharma, Adv., Basant Thakur, Adv., Shiv Pal Manhans, Adv., Raju Ram Rahi, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the petitioner's residence, family ties, and prior conduct in determining the grant of bail in a case involving serious criminal allegations.
Headnote:
BAIL - Criminal Procedure - CrPC - IPC 363, 366, 376 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the bail conditions imposed on the petitioner. It also referred to the allegations under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the conditions for granting bail in such cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail in a case registered under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the IPC. The case involved the alleged kidnapping and violation of a minor girl in 2000. The petitioner was arrested after 18 years and sought bail based on his family and residential ties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been residing in Panchkula for a significant period, had family ties, and had no prior record of fleeing from justice. It concluded that it would not be in the interest of justice to keep the petitioner in judicial custody during the trial and ordered his release on bail.
Issues: The issues included the petitioner's residence, family ties, and the nature of the alleged offences. The court also considered the delay in the arrest and the petitioner's conduct during the period of absconding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioner's long-term residence, family ties, and lack of prior criminal record as factors in granting bail. It also emphasized the need for the petitioner to comply with specific conditions to ensure his availability and prevent misuse of liberty.
Final Decision: The court ordered the petitioner's release on bail, subject to specific conditions, and directed the trial court to ensure compliance with the bail conditions and other necessary measures.
JUDGMENT
Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - Petitioner has preferred present petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ''CrPC'') for grant of bail in case FIR No. 131 of 2000, dated 19th March, 2000, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ''IPC'') registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Ram Swaroop, father of victim, had lodged a complaint on 19th March, 2000 stating therein that his 17 years'' old eldest daughter, studying in 8th class, was taking her examinations and on 16th March, 2000 she went to school to appear in the last paper, but, did not return after her examination and on inquiring by his wife in the school, it came to their knowledge that she had left the school after taking the examination. However, she did not return home till late night, whereafter they inquired from her friends, but all in vain, whereupon his wife lodged a missing report in Police Station on 17th March, 2000 and they also continued search of their daughter whereupon it came in knowledge that Daulat Ram, son of Gurdas, living in their neighbourhood, had taken away his daughter, who had also been found missing from his home and was not even found in his relations. Suspecting kidnapping of his daughter by Daulat Ram by alluring/inducing her to marry with him, FIR was lodged in Police Station Paonta Sahib. On 16th August, 2000, daughter of complainant was traced from brick kiln of one Pawan Kumar Garg situated at Lehra Gagga, District Bhatinda, Punjab and after her medical examination on 17th August, 2000, she was handed over to her father, however, petitionerDaulat Ram @ Manoj skipped and could not be traced despite best efforts by the police and ultimately, he was declared proclaimed offender. The challan was prepared and presented in the court on 4th December, 2001.
3. Ultimately, on 24th April, 2018, the Proclaimed Offenders Cell (hereinafter referred to as ''PO Cell'') of Police in District Sirmaur succeeded to trace petitionerDaulat Ram @ Manoj in Panchkula and arrested him at about 6.00 p.m. On his production in the Court, he was sent in judicial custody till 1st May, 2018 whereafter, he was handed over to the police by giving police remand since 1st May, 2018 to 5th May, 2018 for further investigation/ interrogation and identification of spot.
4. According to the status report, during his police remand, the petitioner identified the temple at Bilaspur (Haryana) where he had applied betrothal vermilion to the victim and thereafter, spent night in the house of his friend Madan. He has also disclosed that he took the victim and his child to Panchkula/Chandigarh and stayed for 1015 days with his relatives and then stayed at Bhatinda in the brick kiln of one Pawan alongwith victim and his child wherefrom, in his absence, police had taken the victim and out of fear, he had absconded.
5. It is averred in the petition that first wife of the petitioner had expired leaving behind a son, aged about six years. Petitioner has remarried in the year 2005 and out of the said wedlock, he has been blessed with one daughter in the year 2006. Further that now, his son is 24 years old and is doing his business at Panchkula, the daughter is studying in 7th class in City Global School, Zirakpur and the petitioner is residing in Sector 21, Panchkula, Haryana.
6. During pendency of present petition, to rule out possibility of petitioner to flee, wife of the petitioner has filed an affidavit placing on record certain documents, i.e. certificate of residence issued by Municipal Councillor, Panchkula and countersigned by Municipal Commissioner, Panchkula, her Voter Identity Card and Adhaar Card, Date of Birth Certificate of daughter Geetanjali, Senior Secondary Certificate of Sumit son of petitioner, ration card of petitioner''s family and Adhaar Card of the petitioner.
7. In the certificate of residence, it has been c
