Amarjeet Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Prayer in the instant petition is for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 7/2020, dated 29.2.2020, registered under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian

Penal Code at Women Police Station, Dharamshala.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the status report as well as the record appended thereto.

According to the status report, the prosecutrix along with her husband came to Women Police Station, Dharamshala on 29.2.2020 and lodged a

complaint against the petitioner.

3(i) The gist of this complaint was that the petitioner, a resident of Panchkula/Chandigarh had been exploiting the complainant sexually as well as

mentally. Petitioner used to take the prosecutrix to different hotels in Hamirpur and Una from 2016 to 2018, where she was forced to take alcohol.

After ravishing her, petitioner used to give her some tablet. Petitioner always threatened her with dire consequences in case of reporting of such

incidents to others. He also threatened to take her life as well as her mother’s life in such an eventualty.

3(ii) The prosecutrix further complained that the petitioner had never disclosed to her during all this period about his being a married man with children.

3(iii) The incident reported in the complaint after 2018, is of June 2019, which is the last incident mentioned in the complaint. It has been alleged that in

June 2019 while prosecutrix was going to Delhi to meet her husband, the petitioner came to Thural bus stand. He dragged her luggage in his Dustun

vehicle, forcibly made her to sit in his vehicle, took her to his room in Chandigarh, switched off her mobile phone, raped her there and thereafter

brought her to her husband’s home in Noida and then walked away. It is further alleged that the prosecutrix could not report about the incident

earlier because of the threatenings given by the petitioner.

3(iv) It has also been complained that the petitioner used to coaxe the prosecutrix to divorce her husband and to thrust a dowry case against him.

3(v) On the basis of these allegations, instant FIR was registered on 29.2.2020. Petitioner was arrested on the same day from village Panyali, Tehsil

Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. Statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 as well as 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During

investigation, the petitioner is stated to have recorded his disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. On the basis of this

statement and at his instance different hotels/places where he had allegedly taken the prosecutrix and raped her were inspected and evidence was

collected. Investigating Agency also took into possession the two Mobile Phones belonging to the prosecutrix as well as two Mobile phones belonging

to the petitioner. The call details of the petitioner and prosecutrix were obtained by the Investigating Agency, which revealed that the petitioner and

the prosecutrix were in constant touch with each other ever since 2014 till June end, 2019. The investigation is reported to be at the last leg and only

the final opinion on the MLC of the prosecutrix, original record from one of the hotel at Chandigarh and CAF of one of the Mobile number of the

petitioner are yet to be received.

Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the plea of false implication and pleaded innocence. According to him, it was a case of consensual sexual

relationship between the petitioner and the prosecurix. He further submitted that petitioner is under arrest ever since 29.2.2020. He had joined and has

been co-operating the Investigating Agency without concealing any aspect of the matter. He is the sole bread earner for his family. He has not

received salary w.e.f. April 2020. Petitioner is married with two minor kids. His family is suffering hardship on account of his being behind the bar

since February 2020 and is not in a position to make both ends meet. Learned Assistant Advocate General has opposed the grant of bail to the

petitioner in view of the seriousness of the offences alleged against him.

5(i) According to the status report, the last incident complained by the prosecutrix is of June 2019, whereas she had reported the matter to the police

only on 29.2.2020. No explanation for the huge delay has been accorded by her. A detailed examination of the statements of the witnesses including

that of prosecutrix is not to be gone into while deciding the bail petition so that it does not prejudice to the case of the either party. However, what

becomes immediately noticeable at this stage is that in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the only reason given for reporting the

matter to police after more than eight months of the last reported incident is that messages in her phone from the petitioner were discovered by her

husband in December 2019.

5(ii) The statement of prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.PC. is to the effect that she was on friendly terms with the petitioner since

2014 onwards. This fact though does not find mention in her complaint.

5(iii) Prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has levelled allegations of having been raped by the petitioner w.e.f. 2014.

These allegations are missing in her complaint as well as in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

5(iv) In her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix has also alleged to have had forcible sexual relationship with the petitioner

under false promise of marriage extended by him. She has specifically complained about petitioner not having disclosed his marital status to her.

5(v) Prosecutrix got married in March 2019. As per her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she was compelled by the petitioner in April

2019 to come to a hotel in Hamirpur, where she was forcibly made to have physical relations with the petitioner under threats. Factum of prosecutrix

being forcibly carried from the Thural bus stand by the petitioner to his home in Chandigarh and after committing rape upon her there , dropping her to

her husband’s home in Noida becomes intriguing.

Without discussing the allegations levelled in the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, however, considering nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am inclined to release him on bail, who is behind the bar since

February 2020. As per the status report investigation in the case is almost complete. The matter statedly left during investigation as pointed out above,

can easily be investigated/documents collected without the necessity of keeping the petitioner behind the bar.

In view of the above observations, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds of

Rs.75,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court having jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station,

subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall join the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law and shall cooperate

with the Investigating Agency.

(ii) The petitioner shall not temper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever:

(iii) The petitioner shall not contact the complainant, threaten or browbeat her or to use any pressure tactics in any manner whatsoever.

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(v) The petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with

the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer;

(vi) The petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change

in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number,

E-mail, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any.

In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondent-State shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of

the bail. It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an

opinion on the merits of the matter. Learned trial Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by above observations.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

The parties shall not insist upon for obtaining certified copy of this order and shall download the same from the website of the High Court. However,

the Registry is directed to send coy of this order to learned counsel for the parties through email subject to furnishing email addresses by them, if so

required.

Authenticated copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Secretary be supplied to learned counsel for the parties, if so requested.