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

2022 Supreme(HP) 533

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J.
Amar @ Rounie S/o Sharvan – Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) No. 37 of 2022
Decided On : 01-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Pravesh Negi.
For the Respondents: Shiv Pal Manhans, Raju Ram Rahi.

Point of Law: Where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, is required to be exercised in his favour.

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366A, 376 – Offence of Kidnapped and Rape - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail - Chowkidar-cum-Storekeeper of Aashram, telephonically informed local police that a girl (name withheld), who is a student of 12th class and resident of Aashram, is missing and it is apprehended that someone might have enticed her and took her away. Upon complaint, so made by complainant, police machinery was set into motion, resultantly; police laid nakkas in entire district - On day of incident, police found aforesaid girl (prosecutrix) with a person petitioner.

Finding of the court: Considering age of petitioner, who is only 22 years old and that of prosecutrix, manner in which offence is alleged to have been committed by petitioner, fact that petitioner is an orphan, he is neither in a position to tamper with prosecution evidence, nor in a position to flee from justice, investigation is complete, even challan stands presented in learned Trial Court, so custody of petitioner is not at all required by police for any purpose, nothing remains to be recovered either from petitioner or at his instance, also considering facts that petitioner is behind bars for last about six months and he cannot be kept behind bars for an unlimited period, petitioner is ready and willing to abide by terms and conditions of bail, in case he is enlarged on bail and also considering overall facts, which have come on record and without elaborately discussing same at this stage, this Court finds that present is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit petitioner on bail, is required to be exercised in his favour.

Result: Petition disposed of.

ORDER :

1. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 91 of 2021, dated 04.08.2021, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P.

2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is permanent resident of the place. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.

3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 04.08.2021 Chowkidar-cum-Storekeeper of Balika Aashram, Kalpa, telephonically informed the local police that a girl (name withheld), who is a student of 12th class and resident of the Aashram, is missing and it is apprehended that someone might have enticed her and took her away. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police machinery was set into motion, resultantly, police laid nakkas in the entire district. On the day of incident, at about 05:30 p.m., police found the aforesaid girl (prosecutrix herein) with a person named Amar (petitioner herein). The prosecutrix stated that in the year 2019 the petitioner married her elder sister and the petitioner took the prosecutrix to Solan. The prosecutrix further stated that during the month of November, 2020, she availed leave due to covid pandemic and went to Solan, to look after her sister and her infant. The prosecutrix resided with her sister and her husband (petitioner herein) at Solan till 18.02.2021 and in the interregnum, the petitioner, during the month of February, 2021, committed sexual intercourse with her. On 19.02.2021 the petitioner dropped the prosecutrix at Balika Aashram, Kalpa. When the prosecutrix missed her menses, she narrated the entire story to her sister, who, in turn made a conference call to the petitioner. In aftermath, the petitioner came to Kalpa on 04.08.2021 and at about 02:30 p.m. met the prosecutrix near a temple. Thereafter, both of them boarded a bus en route Solan, however, police intercepted them. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case under the apt Sections and the investigation ensued. The prosecutrix was medically examined and she was found pregnant. On 05.08.2021, the petitioner was arrested and medically examined. During the course of investigation, the petitioner divulged that he is an orphan and has studied upto 12th class in a Baal Aashram. The police upon the identification of the petitioner prepared the spot maps, procured the date of birth records of the prosecutrix. As per the DNA report, the DNA of the infant born to the prosecutrix completely matches with the DNA of the petitioner. As per the police, upon completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the learned Trial Court on 15.09.2021. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner has committed a heinous offence and he is a nomadic, so in case, at this stage, if he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. It is prayed that at this stage, the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, as investigation is complete, ev

    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