Jiya Lal vs State Of H.P.

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Present petition has been filed seeking direction to enlarge the petitioner on bail in case FIR No. 50 of 2021, dated 13.03.2021, registered in Police

Station Jhakri, District Shimla, under Sections 376, 323 and 506 IPC.

Status report stands filed wherein it is stated that FIR has been registered against the petitioner on the basis of written complaint submitted by

prosecutrix in Police Station Sarahan stating therein that she is resident of District Solan and belongs to Negi community and her aged sister is residing

in Kinnaur in village Lippa and in the month of May/June, 2020 prosecutrix had sent the medicines to her sister as her sister was not able to come to

Solan on account of Lockdown and in turn, her sister had sent her the cost of medicines through Bank and her sister had given phone number of

proseuctrix to cashier of Bank (petitioner) to verify the receipt of amount. It is stated in complaint that petitioner is also Negi and after inquiring about

receipt of amount, he had started telephonic and Whatsapp conversation with prosecutrix and being of the same community and same District,

friendship was developed between them and when prosecutrix was visiting Kinnaur for some urgent work, petitioner had requested her to meet him

and then he had taken her to Sarahan and there, on the pretext of having lunch, he had taken her to Snow View Hotel on 17th and 18th June, 2020 and

in that hotel he had mixed some drug in the cold drink and thereafter, on its consumption prosecutrix had become unconscious and during that period,

taking undue advantage, petitioner had violated her without her consent and had snapped her objectionable photographs and when she gained

consciousness, she was beaten badly and petitioner had also tried to kill her and had threatened her that in case of disclosure of incident to anyone or

police, her objectionable photographs would be circulated in social media including Whatsapp amongst his friends and thereafter he would kill her. As

per prosecutrix, after the incident, due to fear and duress she had gone to Solan and thereafter, petitioner continued to call her from different mobile

numbers and abused her and forcibly indulged her on video call to commit virtual sexual activities including intercourse and thereafter, by taking

advantage of her objectionable snaps with him, on 4th and 5th July, 2020 he had taken her in a hotel at Gharat road, Sarahan and had violated her

forcibly and had again beaten her wherein she had received grievous hurt. In another incident on 31st August, 2020 he had taken her to Mahesh Hotel

Jhakari and had again violated her without her consent and will and she had submitted herself to the petitioner because of threats of making her

photographs viral on social media and to kill her. It is stated in complaint that she is fed up with petitioner and also wants to save her life and petitioner

calls her through different numbers asking her to meet him and forces her to commit sexual activities on video calls. It is further stated in complaint

that she had also made a complaint on 18th January, 2021 against petitioner but petitioner by taking advantage of his acquaintance with police

personnel and his position in the bank, had succeeded to pressurize the prosecutrix to enter into a compromise which was not at all agreeable to her

and according to her, petitioner had pressurized to compromise the matter for destroying the proof of his commission of offence.

As per status report, on the basis of aforesaid statement of complainant, FIR was registered and investigation carried out. During investigation,

statement of complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also been recorded before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur and call

details record of mobile numbers of petitioner as well as prosecutrix have been obtained and Whatsapp Company was also asked to supply the

information with respect to Whatsapp number and ID of petitioner as well as victim, but, in response thereto, the Company had replied that there was

no valid Whatsapp account of Jiya Lal against mobile phone No. 94188-89551, whereas, as per claim of both i.e. prosecutrix as well as petitioner,

Whatsapp chatting between them was through Whatsapp Account against the aforesaid mobile number. Mobile phones of victim as well as petitioner

have been sent to Forensic Laboratory, but, analysis report whereof is still awaited.

4 Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that even if the case of prosecutrix is considered to be true, as has been stated in complaint, then also it

is evident that violation, if any, of the person of prosecutrix was not forcible but consensual as not only on one occasion, but, on numerous occasions,

as claimed in complaint, prosecutrix was accompanying the petitioner in hotels situated in public places and she was accompanying the petitioner

before the alleged forcible violation and even thereafter voluntarily. Further that present complaint has been lodged only for extorting money from

petitioner and for that reason only, the earlier complaint was also compromised with petitioner when petitioner had undertaken to make the payment of

Rs. 50 lacs to complainant for developing physical relations with prosecutrix.

Learned counsel for petitioner has also referred bank account statement of petitioner indicating that from 22.05.2020 to 26.06.2020, in total

Rs.60,000/-, has been transferred from account of petitioner to prosecutrix in six transactions and he has submitted that on failure to pay more,

complaint has been lodged.

6 It is further submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is a bank employee having roots in the society and there is no possibility of his absconding

and keeping in view the nature of allegations and conduct of prosecutrix, petitioner is entitled for enlarging him on bail during the pendency of trial as

custodial interrogation of petitioner is not warranted and so far as violation of person of prosecutrix is concerned, it is yet to be established as to

whether it was forcible or consensual.

Learned Deputy Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed grant of bail, justifying the complaint made by

prosecutrix referring allegations of commission of heinous crime by petitioner against a helpless woman.

8 Without commenting upon the merits of case, but, considering the material placed before me, I am of the considered view that at this stage,

petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, the 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 trial Court within four weeks from today, subject to the following 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.