Amit Kumar @ Anu vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, a prayer has been made for release of the petitioner on

bail in case F.I.R. No.135 of 2020, dated 01.09.2020, registered against him at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 376 and

506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to 'IPC' for short).

The petitioner has been booked for purported commission of offences, under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. As per the complainant, on

14.01.2020, she appeared for an interview for a job, in ENTV at Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., which firm is owned by the petitioner. She was

employed in the said firm. From 14.01.2020 to 15.02.2020, the prosecutrix kept travelling to Palampur from her house, but the petitioner told her that

from 15.01.2020, she will have to stay and reside in a P.G. at Palampur, which was arranged by the petitioner. He asked the prosecutrix to bring her

personal articles only. The prosecutrix was employed by the petitioner at a salary of Rs.12,000/-per month, alongwith expenses for her stay and food.

According to the prosecutrix, on 15.02.2020, she was made to stay in a hotel by the petitioner and when she reached the room of the hotel, the

petitioner closed the door of the same and outraged her modesty. On the next morning, the petitioner took the prosecutrix to his office and threatened

her that in case she revealed as to what had happened during the night, then he would kill her and would spoil her future. On account of said threats,

the prosecutrix did not divulge the incident to anyone and she kept on working till 03.04.2020. Thereafter, she left her job. She remained under stress

for some time and later on regained courage and filed a complaint against the petitioner, which ultimately led to the registration of the F.I.R.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire case which has been made out by the prosecutrix against the petitioner is false and

it is nothing but an attempt made by the prosecutrix to malign the reputation of the petitioner. As per him, the explanation which has been given by the

petitioner with regard to the delay which took place in reporting the alleged incident as from the date when the said incident took place, does not

inspires confidence, which also demonstrates that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submitted that the

petitioner happens to be a resident of Palampur and as the investigation is complete and no recovery etc. is to be made from him, no purpose is going

to be achieved by retaining him in custody, in which he is since 02.09.2020, as there is no likelihood of the petitioner evading trial. On this count,

learned counsel submitted that the petition be allowed and petitioner be ordered to be released on bail.

Opposing the bail petition, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that taking into consideration the gravity of the offence alleged against

the petitioner, it will not be in the interest of justice to release him on bail, because in the event of release of the petitioner on bail, who happens to be a

local resident of Palampur, he is in a position to influence the witnesses and further create hurdles in the course of the trial. He further submitted that

the delay in lodging the complaint/ F.I.R. has been duly explained by the prosecutrix and petitioner does not deserves to be released on bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the status report.

Though, this Court on the previous date had directed the State to produce record of the case, however, learned Additional Advocate General

informs the Court that due to Covid-19 Pandemic situation, record is not available today, however, he assisted the Court on the basis of the status

report which was previously filed, which is a detailed one.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in custody since 02.09.2020. It is further not in dispute that the investigation is complete and now the challan

has been filed in the Court and the case could not be taken up for consideration of charges for some time.

It is a matter of record that though as per the prosecutrix, the alleged incident took place on 14.02.2020, yet the F.I.R. was registered in the month

of September, 2020. Be that as it may, in the considered view of the Court, whether the petitioner is guilty of the offences alleged against him or not,

has to be adjudicated by learned Trial Court. However, taking into consideration the fact that the investigation is complete and challan stands filed and

that the petitioner is in custody since 02.09.2020, in my considered view, as now no purpose is going to be achieved by retaining the petitioner in

custody.

Accordingly, he is ordered to be released on bail, as prayed for, in case F.I.R. No.135 of 2020, dated 01.09.2020, registered against him at Police

Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one

surety in the like amount, 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;

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

(iv) He shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Court.

The apprehension of the State is being taken care of by the Court by imposing strict conditions upon the petitioner and with further liberty to the

State that in case petitioner violates any of the such conditions, then the State can pray for cancellation of the bail, so granted to the petitioner, by

moving appropriate application in the present petition itself.

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 again 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.

Copy dasti.