Back
2019 Supreme(HP) 1516
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Himesh Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No. 1044 of 2019
Decided On : 24-06-2019
Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Advocate, for the petitioner, for the Appellant; Ms. Ritta Goswami, Additional Advocate General, Ms. Divya Sood, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Manoj Bagga, Assistant Advocate General for the respondent/State.Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for the complainant, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of evidence, facts, and circumstances in granting anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of sexual exploitation, and the emphasis on the lack of requirement for custodial interrogation.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Sexual Exploitation - Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, Section 376 - Summary: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The court considered the evidence, facts, and circumstances, and concluded that the petitioner had made out a case for bail, emphasizing that custodial interrogation was not required and highlighting judicial precedents related to similar circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, involving allegations of sexual exploitation and cheating against a police official.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had made out a case for bail, emphasizing that custodial interrogation was not required and highlighting judicial precedents related to similar circumstances.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of sexual exploitation and cheating under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of previous criminal history, the petitioner's government servant status, and the complainant's age and awareness of the consequences. The court also considered the possibility of pressure tactics to force the petitioner to marry the complainant.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with the FIR mentioned in the case, subject to specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J. - The present petition is under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No. 128/2019, dated 4.6.2019, registered at Police Station West, Distt. Shimla, H.P., under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. ASI Amender Singh, I.O. Police Station West, Shimla, H.P., was present on the last date, when the matter was heard. He had brought the police file. I have seen the status report(s) as well as the police file to the extent it was necessary for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same stands returned to the police official. Status report was also taken on record.
3. The gist of the First Information Report and the investigation is as follows:
(a) On 3.6.2019, the Superintendent of Police Shimla, received a complaint through post, which was sent by the victim (name withheld). This was addressed to the Director General of Police, H.P., Shimla as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Shimla, regarding cheating and sexual exploitation against a police official HC - Himesh Sharma, P.S. Sadar, Shimla.
(b) The victim stated that she works as Junior Steno in the District Courts, Chakkar, Shimla and mentioned her age as 31 years.
(c) She stated that the accused met her sometime in the month of March, 2018 in the course of her employment. He disclosed to her that he is posted in Police Station Sadar and is unmarried. He would meet her in the working place of her office and would continue to sit for long hours.
(d) She further stated that they would meet each other two or three times every week and they talked to each other daily for hours together, mostly during night.
(e) She further stated that they would watch movies, visit lonely places like Advance Studies, Jakhoo Temple etc. and during such dates she would object to his sexual advances but every time the would assure her that they would get married.
(f) She stated that on one occasion when they were returning from SRS Cinema ISBT Shimla at about 9.20 p.m., then after reaching home, when she called him on his phone then it was busy for more than twenty minutes. It raised suspicion in her mind and she questioned him as to with whom was he talking for so long, on which he revealed that he was talking to his former girl friend.
(g) She further stated that they would go together to take dinner in various restaurants.
(h) She further stated that in the month of September, after watching movie, petitioner dropped her at her home at Dhanda at 9 p.m. Then on reaching home, after taking tea, he insisted to have sexual intercourse on the pretext that very soon they are going to tie the nuptial knot. She stated that she strongly objected to his advances and conveyed that such relationship prior to marriage was not justified in their culture and since they were going to get married, so he should wait for some time. However, he started an emotional talk regarding their relationship and then she, for the first time had sexual intercourse with him.
(i) After this coitus, she was remorseful and repentant because she had succumbed to his pressures. She conveyed to the accused in very strong terms that he will have to fulfil his promise of marriage because she accepted to have sexual intercourse with him only on such terms.
(j) Thereafter, every evening he would call her and then they would go to Advance Studies, where they would sit till 10.30 p.m.
(k) Later on, she came to know that the accused had physical relationship even with his previous girlfriend. This estranged her and she raised her grouse that he should not have established sexual relationship with her before marriage.
(l) Later on, he started threatening the victim that since he works in police he can do anything. After this the victim disclosed everything to her parents and brothers who visited the parents of the petitioner. On 25.2.2019, the mother of the petitioner very bluntly conveyed to the family of the victim that they would marry the petit
