Desh Raj vs State of Himachal Pradesh

The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 10 of 2017, dated 30.1.2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, registered with Police Station, Karsog Mandi, H.P.

As per the petitioner, he is innocent and has not committed any crime, but due to the false complaint lodged by the prosecutrix, he is behind the bars since 31.1.2017.

Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent. Police report was filed in the Court below and record of the case was produced.

As per the prosecution story, at the instance of the prosecutrix, FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC. The allegations levelled by the prosecutrix against the petitioner are that approximately four years before on 26/27.2.2013 in the evening she had gone to attend the marriage of son of Nupa Ram in village Kanda Deori. She met the accused there. Thereafter, the accused came to the village of the prosecutrix. When the accused came to the house of prosecutrix, the parents of the prosecutrix had gone to in-laws of her sister. The accused told the prosecutrix that he is unmarried and wanted to marry the prosecutrix. He made the false allurement to the prosecutrix that he will marry her and the prosecutrix agreed for the marriage. He remained in the house of the prosecutrix for two days and had illicit act with the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was taken by the accused to Ani and made to live in a rented accommodation at Ani and lived with her as her husband, making her believe that he will marry her some day and kept on having sexual intercourse with her. Ultimately, a daughter was born to them. When the prosecutrix asked the accused to get his name registered as father of the newly born child, he refused to do so. Thereafter, the prosecutrix came to know that the accused was already married and on false promise/allurement, kept her for four years in his rented accommodation and had sexual intercourse with her and he has, thus, destroyed her life. Thereafter, on the basis of such allegations leveled by the prosecutrix, accused was booked for the offence and arrested on 31.1.2017.

Heard. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, learned Senior Advocate has argued that no case has been registered by the Police. The present is a fit case, where the petitioner is required to be released on bail. He further argued that petitioner is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, as the prosecutrix is a grown up lady of 24 years of age and understands the facts, which she was performing and now a false case has been made out against the petitioner. He has further argued that the petitioner will join the investigation as and when required. He has further argued that the petitioner is resident of the place and he is not in a position to flee from justice.

On the other hand, Mr. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed serious offence not only against the poor lady, but against the State as being married, having four daughters, he has spoiled the life of the prosecutrix. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that the investigation is complete.

I have gone through the rival contentions of the parties and the police report in detail.

From the record, it is clear that the prosecutrix was asking the petitioner to marry her, but for the last four years, he was delaying the marriage on one pretext or the other. It has also come in the record that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were living at Ani, which is a place 50 Kms away from the house of the accused. It has also come on record that the accused was already married having a wife and four daughters.

The investigation is now complete in this case and only the DNA report and the birth certificate of the newly born child is to be released from the laboratory. This Court also finds that petitioner is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Weighing in mind that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place having four daughters, he is not in a position to flee from justice, so this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Therefore, it is ordered that the petitioner be released forthwith on bail, on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 25,000 (twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court, in case FIR No. 10/17, dated 30.1.2017, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC, registered at Police Station, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:

(1) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required.

2) That the petitioner will not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.

3) That the petitioner will not directly or indirectly 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 Investigating Officer or Court.

In view of above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.