Amandeep Kaushal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Satyen Vaidya, J

Apprehending his arrest in case FIR No. 9 of 2022, dated 2.6.2022 registered at Women Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. under Sections 376 and 313 IPC, the petitioner has approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail.

On 2.6.2022, the prosecutrix submitted a written complaint at Women Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. alleging inter-alia that the petitioner had been maintaining physical relation with her for the last about seven years. On 12.3.2022, she came to know that the petitioner was marrying some other lady. In such manner, breach of promise to marry was alleged against the petitioner. As per prosecutrix, she was sexually exploited by the petitioner under a false pretext to marry.

Prayer of the petitioner has been resisted and contested by the respondent on the grounds that the petitioner is a clever person and in case of release on bail, he may tamper with prosecution evidence and may also flee from the course of justice. It is further stated that there is resentment in the society against the acts of petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have gone through the records.

The age of the prosecutrix has been mentioned as 26 years on the date of registration of FIR, meaning thereby that the prosecutrix and petitioner were maintaining relationship since the time when prosecutrix was about 19 years of age. Though this Court is not to minutely scan the evidence collected by the investigating agency at the stage of deciding the bail application, still the material on record can be looked into for assessing the gravity and seriousness of allegations against the petitioner.

The allegations of promise to marry and inducing the prosecutrix to maintain sexual relationship with petitioner under such promise are matter of trial. No doubt, the offence of rape attracts severe punishment, but that cannot be the sole criteria to deny bail to the petitioner. The material on record suggests that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and she had attained the age of majority. The maintenance of such relationship for a long period of about seven years under the alleged promise to marry by itself is a circumstance which needs thorough probe and proof for securing the conviction of the petitioner.

Petitioner has already joined the investigation. There is no allegation against him that he has avoided his association in the investigation as and when required. No criminal history has been attributed to the petitioner.

The respondent has not placed on record any tangible material to support its apprehensions regarding the petitioner tampering with prosecution evidence or fleeing from the course of justice. In any case, all such apprehensions can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions. This is not a case where custodial interrogation of petitioner shall yield any fruitful purpose. Pre-trial incarceration cannot be ordered as a matter of rule. Petitioner is permanent resident of Ward No.1, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed and in the event of arrest of petitioner in case FIR No. 9 of 2022, dated 2.6.2022 registered at Women Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. under Sections 376 and 313 IPC, he is ordered to be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigation Officer. This order is subject to following conditions: -

(i) The petitioner shall make himself available for the purpose of investigation, an and when required;

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

(iii) The petitioner 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) The petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court till completion of investigation and thereafter of the trial court, if any.

Any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.

Petition stands disposed of.