Abhilash @ Kittu vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition, filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail, in FIR No. 18 of 2022, dated 08.09.2022, registered under Sections 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (hereinafter to be referred as ‘POCSO’) Act, at Women Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He has further submitted that the investigation is now complete and the case is at the stage of recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and therefore, in these circumstances as no recovery etc. is to be made from the petitioner, it would be in the interest of justice if he is ordered to be released on bail. Learned Senior Counsel further apprised the Court that the prosecution has cited 31 witnesses in the main challan whereas the supplementary challan is being contemplated to be filed by the prosecution and as there is no possibility of the trial being completed in near future, therefore also, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail, as right to speedy trial is the fundamental right of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that as the next date for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses is 20.11.2023, the interest of justice demands that the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, because whether or not the petitioner is guilty, is a matter of trial and ultimately if he is found guilty, the law will take its own course.

The petition is opposed by the State, inter alia, on the ground that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are both grave and heinous and further as the stage of the case is that statements of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded, therefore, in such like circumstances there is each and every possibility that if released on bail the petitioner may try to win over or influence the witnesses which may hamper a fair trial. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the petitioner being a local person, may otherwise also try to influence the outcome of the trial and therefore also the present petition be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the status report as well as other documents appended with the petition.

The petitioner is in custody with regard to the commission of offences alleged against him since 08.09.2022. The investigation is complete and the case is at the stage of recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses. In these circumstances, as the petitioner is in custody for almost an year now, this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be cause if he is released on bail by imposing stringent conditions upon him. As far as the apprehension of the State that if released on bail, the petitioner may try to win over or influence the witnesses is concerned, the said apprehension can be taken care of by granting liberty to the State to approach this Court for cancellation of the bail in case the petitioner tries to violate any of the conditions that shall be imposed upon him by the Court while releasing him on bail.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by ordering the release of the petitioner in FIR No.18 of 2022, dated 08.09.2022, registered under Sections 376, 506 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, at Women Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/­ (Rs. Fifty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned CJM/ACJM/JMFC concerned, within a period of two weeks from today, subject to the following conditions:­

i.) Petitioner shall attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

ii.) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

iii) He shall not 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 the Police Officer; and

iv) He shall not leave the territory of the State of Himachal Pradesh without prior permission of the learned trial Court.

It is clarified that findings, which have been returned by this Court while deciding this petition, are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail petition and learned Trial Court shall not be influenced, in any manner whatsoever, by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this petition during the course of the trial. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.