Hari Krishan vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

ASI Kulinder Singh, IO Women Police Station, Una, District Una, H.P. present with case record.

Status report has been filed, which is perused and ordered to be taken on record.

By way of this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for the grant of regular bail in FIR No. 24 of 2022, dated 06.08.2022, registered at Women Police Station Una, District Una, H.P. under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the matter. He further submitted that the petitioner is a government employee and he is residing with his wife and family, and as otherwise also, the investigation is complete and challan also stands filed in the Court of law, therefore, no purpose is going to be served by detaining him further in custody. Learned Counsel has also argued that the factum of the case having been lodged against the petitioner being false, is proved from the fact that in FIR it is mentioned that when the petitioner allegedly outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix, she was residing with her husband but her subsequent statement, which has been recorded on 06.08.2022, at Women Police Station, Una, District Una, HP, reveals that therein she stated that she was in live in relationship with Sanjeev Kumar. Learned Counsel also submitted that as the petitioner is not acquainted with the prosecutrix, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to give any money to the prosecutrix or visiting her house as alleged. He has submitted that this is a trap which has been laid down with the intent to extract money from the petitioner.

The petition is opposed by learned Additional Advocate General on the ground that taking into consideration the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner, it will not be expedient to release him on bail, however, the factum of investigation being complete and challan already filed in the Court of law, has not been denied.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the averments made in the petition as well as documents appended therewith, including the status report and investigation record produced before the Court.

Variation in the statements of prosecutrix at the time of lodging of the FIR, on the strength of which the FIR was lodged, with her subsequent statement recorded in the Police Station, is borne out from the record of the case. However, as this is not the stage, the Court is not testing the veracity of the case of the prosecution suffice to say that taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is 55 years old and the prosecutrix is stated to be 33 years and further as the investigation is now complete and challan already stands filed, this Court is of the considered view that no purpose is going to be served by detaining the petitioner in custody further.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 24 of 2022, dated 06.08.2022, registered at Women Police Station Una, District Una, H.P. under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM/ACJM/JMFC within a period of two weeks, subject further to the following conditions:-

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;

He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

He shall not 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 Court or the Police Officer; and He shall not leave the territory of this Country.

It is clarified that findings which have been returned by this Court while deciding this petition are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail petition and learned trial Court shall not be influenced, in any manner whatsoever, by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this petition during the course of the trial of the case. It is further clarified that in case the petitioner does not complies with any of 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.