Mathi Dhar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail in FIR No. 183 of 2018

dated 16.12.2018, registered under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station B. S. L. Colony Sunder Nagar, District Mandi,

H.P.

The case of the prosecution is that an FIR stood registered against the petitioner on 16.12.2018 at the behest of prosecutrix, who alleged that on

15.12.2018, while she was on her way to her house from a Computer Centre, where she was undergoing a Computer course, the petitioner, around

6:00 p.m., forcibly dragged her towards a Ghasani from the road and there, he raped her. On the basis of the FIR so lodged by the prosecutrix, the

petitioner was taken into custody and he is stated to be in custody since 17th December, 2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged against him and he has been falsely and wrongly

impleaded in the matter. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 17 th December, 2018, i.e., for almost 1 year and 11 months as

of now and no fruitful purpose is going to be served by keeping him in custody, as investigation is complete and post filing of the challan, charges stand

framed and now the matter is being listed before the learned Court below for the purpose of recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. He

further apprised the Court that the case was listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 14th July, 2020, 19th August, 2020, 13th

October, 2020, 28th October, 2020 and 21st November, 2020. On these five occasions, statement of not even a single witness of the prosecution was

recorded. He has further submitted that the petitioner is a local resident of village Karla. He belongs to a respected family and his entire family is

settled in the said village and in the event of grant of bail, the petitioner shall comply with all such conditions, as may be imposed by this Court and shall

neither jump the bail nor evade the trial.

Opposing the bail, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the offence alleged against the

petitioner, this petition may be dismissed, because there is every possibility that in the event of grant of bail to the petitioner, he may try to win over or

influence the prosecution witnesses, which may create undue hurdles in the course of a fair trial.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the status report filed by the State.

It is not in dispute that at the time of the alleged occurrence of the incident, which has resulted in lodging of the FIR against the petitioner, the

prosecutrix was major. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner also happens to be a young boy aged about 23 years. Whether or not the petitioner is

guilty of the offence alleged against him, is a matter of trial and it is for the Trial Court to decide the said issue on the basis of evidence which shall be

led before it by the parties concerned. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 17th December, 2018 and

despite the case being listed before the learned Court below for recording the prosecution evidence on five occasions, no statement of prosecution

witness could be recorded, in my considered view, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody and it will be prudent to

release him. As far as apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General is concerned, the same shall be taken care of by the Court by

imposing strict conditions upon the petitioner and with grant of liberty to the State that in the event of the petitioner jumping any of the conditions of the

bail, the State shall be at liberty to approach the Court for cancellation of the bail.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 183 of 2018, dated 16.12.2018, registered under

Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station B.S.L. Colony Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., subject to his furnishing bail bond

in the sum of Rs.50,000/Â with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:

“(a) He 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;

(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever;

(c) 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

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Court.â€​

It is clarified that the findings which have been returned by this Court while deciding this petition are only for the purpose of adjudication of the

present bail application and learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this

petition during trial of the case. It is further clarified that in case the petitioner does not comply with 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 bail.

Copy dasti.