Bhag Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Sandeep Sharma, J

Sequel to order dated 1.4.2023, whereby petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest in case FIR No. 2 of 2023, dated 23.3.3023 under S.376 IPC and S.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act registered at Police Station BSL Colony, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Anil Kumar, Police Station BSL Colony, has come present with record.

Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that police after having received information from HWC Dol Dhar that one minor girl, who is pregnant, has been brought for check up, reached aforesaid Hospital and recorded statement of complainant, alleged in her statement that, while studying in Government Senior Secondary School Fangwas in 2022, she came in contact with the bail petitioner. She alleged that on 6.4.2022, she alongwith bail petitioner had gone to Sundernagar Bazaar and she stayed with the bail petitioner in one room for a week. She alleged that for the last one and half years, they have been meeting each other frequently and during this period, they developed physical relations of their own will. She stated in the complaint that on 14.10.2022, she and bail petitioner had gone to their respective houses but after one month, she came to know that she is pregnant. In the aforesaid background, police lodged FIR detailed above. Apprehending arrest, petitioner approached this court in the instant proceedings for grant of interim bail and on 1.4.2023, he was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail subject to his joining investigation.

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General on the instructions of Investigating Officer, fairly states that pursuant to order dated 1.4.2023, petitioner has joined the investigation. Learned Additional Advocate General further states that though as per information given to the police, both petitioner and victim-prosecutrix have solemnized marriage but keeping in view gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve leniency and his prayer for bail deserves outright rejection

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that bare perusal of statements of the victim-prosecutrix recorded under Ss. 154 CrPC and 164 CrPC, clearly reveal that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure had joined company of the bail petitioner and at no point of time, forcible sexual intercourse was committed by bail petitioner upon her. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after lodging of FIR, families of both the parties have solemnized marriage of the bail petitioner and victim-prosecutrix and now they are living happy married life, as such, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail, may kindly be accepted.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, especially statements of the victim - prosecutrix recorded under Ss.154 and 164 CrPC, this court finds that the bail petitioner and victim-prosecutrix were in love with each other for 1 and ½ years and had been meeting each other frequently. As per victim-prosecutrix, she had been joining company of the bail petitioner of her own will and during this period she willfully developed physical relations with the bail petitioner. Leaving everything aside, once the bail petitioner and victim-prosecutrix have solemnized marriage, and are living happy married life, no fruitful purpose will be served by sending bail petitioner behind bars, who has otherwise made himself available for investigation pursuant to order dated 1.4.2023.

Though the aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be denied by learned trial Court in the totality of evidence led on record by Investigating Agency but having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner and victim-prosecutrix have solemnized marriage, this court sees no reason to send the petitioner in judicial custody.

Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. Apprehension expressed by learned Assistant Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions.

Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual can not be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.

In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.

In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Order dated 1.4.2023 is made absolute, subject to petitioner furnishing fresh personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, besides the following conditions:

(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly 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;

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

(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises 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

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

It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.