Aman vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition, a prayer has been made for release of the petitioner on bail in case F.I.R. No.11/2020, dated 04.06.2020, registered against

him at Women Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 376, 328, 120B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to

'IPC' for short).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecutrix. He

submits that though the petitioner is not admitting the allegations levelled against him in the F.I.R., however, even if the contents thereof are taken as

they are, the same would demonstrate that the prosecutrix has herself stated therein that she was having relation with the petitioner. The F.I.R. has

been lodged simply to blackmail the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner otherwise is earning his livelihood by working at Kala Amb and since,

he is in custody from the month of June, 2020, it is very difficult for him and his family, which comprises of his aged parents to maintain themselves.

Learned Counsel further submits that investigation in the case is complete, challan already stands filed and therefore also custody of the petitioner is

no more required. He stated that in the event of petitioner being released on bail, petitioner undertakes not to tamper with the evidence or try to

influence the witnesses etc. He further submits that petitioner shall abide by all the conditions which may be imposed upon him by the Court.

Opposing the bail petition, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that taking in consideration the gravity of the offences which have been

alleged against the petitioner and further the fact that petitioner belongs to the State of Haryana, in the event of the petitioner being released on bail,

there is each and every possibility that he may jump the bail and he may hamper the course of trial. He thus submits that the bail petition be dismissed.

Controverting the submissions so made by learned Additional Advocate General, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has instructions

to state that in the event of his being released on bail, he shall not leave the territory of State of Himachal Pradesh, without the permission of the

learned Trial Court, till the trial is over. He further submits that the allegations against the petitioner are totally concocted and it will be highly injustice

to denial the bail to him.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents appended with the petition as well as status report, which has

been filed by the State.

It is not in dispute that the age of the petitioner is twenty two years, whereas the prosecutrix as per the State is thirty years old. A perusal of the

status report demonstrates that according to the prosecutrix, she is a widow, who has two children and she has been forced by the petitioner to

maintain physical relations with him on the pretext of marriage and when she denied physical access to the petitioner, he used to harass her and

threatened her that he would kill her children. It has also come in the status report that even as per the date of filing of the F.I.R., the prosecutrix and

the petitioner were not in touch with each other for the last three months and she was residing separately in a tenanted premises.

Taking into consideration these facts and further the factum of the investigation being complete and the challan having been filed in the Court, in my

considered view, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. As far as apprehension expressed by the State that petitioner

being resident of State of Haryana, is likely to jump the bail is concerned, the same can be taken care of in view of the statement so made by learned

Counsel for the petitioner, which is taken on record. The Court, on a query put to the State, has been further informed that there are no previous

similar allegations against the petitioner.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed, by ordering the release of petitioner on bail in case F.I.R. No.11/2020, dated 04.06.2020, registered against him

at Women Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 376, 328, 120B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, on his furnishing personal

bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/Â​ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:Â​

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;

iii) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

iv)Undertaking of the petitioner through Counsel is taken on record that the petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of the State of H.P. without

the permission of learned Trial Court.

It is clarified that the findings which have been returned by this Court while deciding this petition are only for the purpose of adjudication of the

present bail application and learned trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this petition

during the trial of the case. It is further clarified that in case the petitioner does not complies with the conditions which have been imposed upon him

while granting the present bail, the State shall be at liberty to approach this Court for the cancellation of the bail. The petition stands disposed of in the

above terms.