Chhering Ringchen vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

In the present petition, petitioner is an accused in case registered in Police Station Brow, District Kullu H.P. under Sections 376 and 506-A of

Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) vide FIR No. 58 of 2021, dated 24.7.2021.

2 Status report stands filed and record was also produced. As per prosecution story, on 24.7.2021 prosecutrix, along with her mother, had approached

the police along with a written complaint, stating therein that she, daughter of late Bhaginar resident of village ‘A’, District Kinnaur was residing

in village Brow since last four years in a rented accommodation separate from her husband, who was resident of village Bayal and since then, she had

been working as handloom weaver with accused Chhering Ringchen at village Thachva, P.O. Rampur near village Brow, whereas petitioner is

permanent resident of village Sunnam, Tehsil Pooh, District Kinnaur and for about last one year, after extending false promise of second marriage, he

had been violating her person in her rented accommodation at Brow and lastly, he violated her on 16.07.2021 and thereafter, he left for his village to

Kinnaur and was refusing to perform second marriage with her. As per complaint, whenever victim refused to accede to desire of petitioner/accused,

he used to extend threats to kill her. On the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR was registered. Victim was medically examined wherein Medical

Officer had opined that there was no external injury, but, possibility of forcible recent intercourse could not be ruled out. However, he had not given

final opinion for want of RFSL report.

3 As per status report, during investigation, petitioner was called in Police Station by contacting him on his mobile phone, who attended the Police

Station on the same day i.e. 24.07.2021. As per prosecution, during interrogation, petitioner had disclosed that he was an agriculturist resident of

village Sunnam, Tehsil Pooh, District Kinnaur and since 2015, at Thachva, he had established a Handloom industry where 34 years old victim was also

doing weaving for two years and both of them were in contact of each other and since last one year, he and victim had been meeting with each other

in quarter of victim and house of petitioner and about one week ago on 16.07.2021, he and victim had come from Kullu to Brow and had lived together

during night and thereafter he had gone to his village in Kinnaur and as there was no network of Airtel in village, he could not contact the victim.

Yesterday, his family, residing in Dakolam Rampur in rented accommodation, had informed on mobile phone of his brother that victim was going to

lodge a complaint with police at Brow in District Kullu and on receiving that information, he had come back to Dakolam during night of 23.07.2021 and

had attended the Police Station on 24.07.2021, when police had called him.

4 As per status report, petitioner had disclosed that he had been knowing victim after she joined as weaver in his Handloom and as she was not happy

with her family, therefore, he had considered her as a family member and given her full support and since last one year they have been residing as

husband and wife.

5 It is also reported that on 27.07.2021, statement of victim was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

Ani. Petitioner was arrested on 24.07.2021, who remained in police custody till 27.07.2021 and since 27.07.2021, he is in judicial custody. Challan has

been prepared and presented in the Court of learned JMFC Ani on 11th August, 2021.

6 It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that wife of petitioner was aggrieved by relations of prosecutrix and petitioner, therefore, she had lodged a

complaint with police against prosecutrix on 10.9.2020 and complaint has been lodged by prosecutrix with some ulterior motive, who, after alluring the

petitioner, had started living with him in live-in relationship for the last one year. On 25.9.2020 also, there was altercation on this issue between wife of

petitioner and prosecutrix and there was a fight between the two ladies and matter was reported to police, whereupon both were subjected to medical

examination and as per Medico Legal Certificates (MLCs) issued by Medical Officer, victim had received three injuries which were simple in nature,

whereas, Jag Devi, wife of petitioner, had also received three simple injuries and the said fact was recorded in Daily Diary of Police Station Brow in

Daily Diary vide GD No. 003, dated 25.09.2020 at 2.07 AM. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that matter was compromised between

wife of petitioner and prosecutrix and the same was reduced into writing wherein wife of petitioner had agreed to withdraw the complaint lodged with

police and victim had agreed neither to come to house of petitioner nor hurl abuses with condition that petitioner would not be coming to meet her and

wife of petitioner would also not abuse her.

7 Photocopy of GD entry and compromise arrived at between wife of petitioner and prosecutrix have also been placed on record as Annexures P-1

and P-2.

8 It is the case of prosecution that prosecutrix was pressurizing the wife of petitioner to give consent to petitioner to solemnize marriage with

prosecutrix, but, wife of petitioner did not give her consent and since then, prosecutrix was quarreling with her (wife of petitioner) and was threatening

the petitioner to implicate him in the case and it is submitted that present FIR is nothing but is an abuse of the process of law just to pressurize the

family of petitioner for giving consent for second marriage. Lastly, it is contended that even before lodging the present FIR, petitioner and his relatives

were called in Police Station for amicable settlement, but, the matter could not be settled as prosecutrix was adamant for second marriage or in

alternative, demanding a huge money which was beyond the financial capacity of petitioner and on refusal of petitioner and his family members to

accept the demand, the prosecutrix opted to lodge FIR with malafide intentions and ulterior motives. It is also contended that it was not possible for

petitioner to solemnize second marriage, that too when his first marriage and first marriage of prosecturix are still subsisting and victim, knowing it

fully, had herself started living in live-in relationship with petitioner.

9 Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that petitioner has committed a heinous crime against a destitute woman and has violated her

person after giving false promise of marriage and therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

10 Without commenting upon the rival contentions of parties, applying principles, factors and parameters, as propounded by the Supreme Court and

this Court, required to be considered at the time of adjudication of bail application, I am of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances,

detailed supra, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal

bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court within two weeks from today and subject

to the following other conditions:-

(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available during the investigation as well as trial on each and every date as and when required;

(ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as

to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or

influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) That the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation as well as trial;

(iv) That the petitioner shall not jump over the bail and shall inform, in writing, regarding change of address, land line number and/or mobile number, if

any, in advance, to concerned Police Station;

(v) That the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected or the commission of which he is

suspected;

(vi) In the event of repetition of commission of offence, bail granted in present case shall be liable to be cancelled on taking appropriate steps by

prosecution/police;

(vii) That the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of Court;

(viii) That petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.

11 It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing any such other or further condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and

circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. It will also be open to the trial Court/Magistrate to impose any other or further condition on the

petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

12 In case the petitioner violates any condition imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach

the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

13 Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No. HHC/VIG/Misc.Instructions/93-

IV.7139 dated 18.3.2013.

14 Any observation made in this order shall not affect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application

filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not insist for certified copy

of the order, however, they may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.

Petition stands disposed of.

Dasti copy on usual terms.