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

2021 Supreme(HP) 117

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Mohammad Nazim - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.M.P.(M) No.620 of 2021
Decided On : 06-04-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr.Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 21, 22 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 438, 157 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 366A, 370(4), 506 and 120B – Bail – Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in case FIR registered in Police Station under Sections 363, 366A, 370(4), 506 and 120B of Indian Penal Code – Status report stands filed, wherein it is stated that victim, aged about 15 years, who is studying in Class 9th, had left her home at 9.30 a.m. to attend her school i.e. Sanatan Dharam Senior Secondary School, Ganj Bazaar, Shimla, and when she did not return home in the evening, her father, on inquiry, had received information that on that day students were not called in the school – Father of the victim had approached Police Station Sadar, Shimla, with suspicion that someone had abducted her daughter after alluring and misleading her – Held, Where right to investigate, and to arrest and detain an accused during investigation, is provided under Cr.P.C., there are provisions of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, guaranteeing protection of life and personal liberty as well as against arrest and detention in certain cases – It is well settled that interference by the Court at the investigation stage, in normal course, is not warranted. – However, as discussed supra, Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an exception to general principle and at the time of exercising power under Section 438 Cr.P.C., balance between right of Investigating Agency and life and liberty of a person has to be maintained by the Courts, in the light of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, but also keeping in mind interference by the Court directing the Investigating Officer not to arrest an accused amounts to interference in the investigation – Nature, gravity and seriousness of offence, extent of involvement of petitioners, manner of commission of offence, antecedents of petitioners, possibility of petitioners fleeing from justice and impact of granting or rejecting the bail on society as well as petitioner, are also amongst those several relevant factors which may compel the Court to reject or accept the bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. – It is not possible to visualize all factors and enlist them as every case is to be decided in its peculiar facts and circumstances – It is also true that even in absence of necessity of custodial interrogation also, an accused may not be entitled for anticipatory bail in all eventualities. – Based on other relevant factors, parameters and principles enumerated and propounded by Courts in various pronouncements, some of which have also been referred by counsel for CBI, anticipatory bail may be denied to an accused. – Requirement of custodial interrogation is not only reason for rejecting bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Petition Dismissed

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C.), seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in case FIR No.34 of 2021, dated 05.03.2021, registered in Police Station Sadar, Shimla, H.P., under Sections 363, 366A, 370(4), 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’).

2. Status report stands filed, wherein it is stated that on 05.03.2021 victim, aged about 15 years, who is studying in Class 9th, had left her home at 9.30 a.m. to attend her school i.e. Sanatan Dharam Senior Secondary School, Ganj Bazaar, Shimla, and when she did not return home in the evening, her father, on inquiry, had received information that on that day students were not called in the school. With aforesaid complaint, father of the victim had approached Police Station Sadar, Shimla, with suspicion that someone had abducted her daughter after alluring and misleading her.

3. As per status report, on complaint of father of the victim, case under Section 363 IPC was registered and investigation was started. During investigation, location of mobile number of victim was found in Haryana leading to the clue to the police that victim was travelling towards Delhi. Whereupon, police party was sent to Delhi in search of victim and it was also found that victim was having too many talks on two mobile numbers (96398-21301 and 62382-27896), therefore, CDRs and location of those two numbers were also requisitioned.

4. Investigating Officer, on 06.03.2021, after reaching in Police Station Badarpur, Delhi, started investigation and found that last location of victim, on 05.03.2021 at about 8.19 p.m., was found at Panipat and thereafter her phone was found switched off. From CDRs of two mobile numbers, Investigating Officer had contacted on some mobile numbers, which were found in contact of these two mobile numbers and during this exercise, one mobile number 95606-42747 was found to be of one Jatin Malik, who in response informed to the Investigating Officer that he is having a Maruti Car bearing registration No.DL9CAP-3819 and on 05.03.2021 he had gone to Ambala from Delhi to drop a passenger and at Ambala a girl had met him, who had disclosed that she was going to Delhi, whereupon, he had been taking that girl to Delhi alongwith him, but near Panipat mobile phone of that girl was switched off and for that reason that girl had contacted someone through his mobile and the person, with whom she had talked, had disclosed his name to him (Jatin) as Zuber and further that Zuber had told him that one boy will send him location from mobile number 96671-56859 and had asked him (Jatin) to drop the victim on that location and thereafter on receiving location of Badarpur, Delhi from the aforesaid number, he had dropped victim at Badarpur NTPC Chowk at about 10.30 p.m. on 05.03.2021, wherefrom a boy had taken her.

5. During investigation, it was revealed that the boy, who had sent the location, was one Ibrahim residing at Badarpur in a room rented in a building known as ‘Akash’. During search for Ibrahim, his room was found locked and it came in notice that he was hiding him in some other house in the room of his friend, wherefrom he was taken to Badarpur Police Station and shown to Jatin, and Jatin had identified him the same boy to whom he had handed over the girl on 05.03.2021.

6. During interrogation, Ibrahim had disclosed that on 05.03.2021 he had received calls from Zuber and Nazim @ Sameer (petitioner), boys belonging to his village, who were working with him earlier at Delhi, but presently Zuber was at Chennai, whereas, Nazim @ Sameer was in Kerala. He had further revealed that both of them had informed him that one ‘X’ named girl would come in some vehicle at Badarpur NTPC Gate and asked him to take her to his quarter and further that on request of these two persons he had taken victim from Badarpur NTPC Gate to his room in ‘Akash’ building and had kept her in his room on 05.03.202

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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