High CourtsSingle Bench

Lobh Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 27 January 2022 · Citation: (2022) 01 SHI CK 0072

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satyen Vaidya, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376, 452, 506 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 164, 439
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 154 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

45 paragraphs · 960 words

Satyen Vaidya, J

1.

Petitioner is an accused of offence under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, in case FIR No. 137 of 2021 dated 22.11.2021,

registered at Police Station, Karsog District Mandi, H.P. The petitioner is in custody since 24.11.2021.

2.

Petitioner has approached this Court by filing petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in above noted case on the grounds that his

implication is false and for ulterior motive. The purpose for implicating the petitioner in false case is to settle personal score. No legal evidence could

be collected by the investigating agency to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. The investigation is already complete and challan has been

presented. Valuable right of personal liberty of petitioner shall be seriously infringed in case he is kept in custody till conclusion of trial. He is ready

and willing to abide all the conditions, as may be imposed against him. petitioner has further undertaken not to tamper with the prosecution evidence.

3.

In response, the respondent-State has filed status report. It is stated that on 22.11.2021, victim submitted a written complaint at Police Station,

Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. alleging inter-alia that the petitioner has been harassing the victim for the last about 7-8 years and has been asking her to

have physical relations with him. On 21.11.2021, petitioner repeatedly made phone calls to the complainant and uttered indecent words. On

22.11.2021, at about 12.30 P.M., the petitioner again called her on phone and thereafter he entered into the house of victim, kicked her and forcibly

assaulted her sexually. As per victim, she was alone in the house at the relevant time and there was none present even in the neighborhood. Victim

allegedly called her husband on phone and informed him about the incident. Petitioner after committing the offence fled from the scene and threatened

her that he had raped her and she is free to do anything.

4.

Case was registered under Section 376. 452 and 506 IPC. Statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After completion of

investigation, challan has been presented. It has been specifically stated in the status report that according to CDR, it was found that the victim as well

as petitioner had been engaging each other through phone calls.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

6.

Though, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature but the same are to be proved in accordance with law. The Court at the stage of

bail is not to minutely scan the evidence, yet, the material on record collected by the investigating agency can be taken into consideration for prima-

facie assessment of the seriousness and gravity of allegations. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the victim had made any complaint to

any person or authority against the petitioner in the past. That being so, the conduct of victim becomes questionable. In case, a married woman is

being harassed for 7-8 years as alleged, it cannot be considered normal that no complaint was made regarding the conduct of the petitioner. Further it

has specifically been mentioned in the status report that victim had also been making phone calls to petitioner. This conduct of the victim again raises

suspicion as to the veracity of allegations. It has not been explained as to for what purpose, victim had been contacting the petitioner on phone.

7.

Pre-trial incarceration cannot be ordered as a matter of rule. The trial against petitioner is likely to take considerable time for its completion. No

fruitful purpose shall be served in keeping the petitioner in judicial custody till completion of trial.

8.

It has not been alleged that in case of release of petitioner on bail, the trial may be adversely affected. It is also not the case of the respondent that

the petitioner has potential to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Petitioner is permanent resident of Village Belu Dhar, Post Office Khaneol

Bagra, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. and there is no likelihood of his absconding from the course of justice.

9.

In view of given facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 137 of

2021 dated 22.11.2021, registered at Police Station, karsog District Mandi, H.P., on his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one

surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. and in his absence any other

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class on duty. This order shall be subject to following conditions:-

i) That the shall petitioner regularly appear before learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing.

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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police.

iii) That the petitioner shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence.

iv) That any indulgence of petitioner in criminal activities during the continuance of this order shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to the

petitioner.

v) That the petitioner shall not leave India till conclusion of trial without permission of the learned Court.

vi) That in case of violation of any of the conditions, the bail granted to the bail applicant shall be liable to be cancelled.

10.

Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the

matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.