Mohammad Sadiq Mughal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

.

Virender Singh, J

Applicant-Mohammad Sadiq Mughal has filed the present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for releasing him on bail, in case FIR No.34/2022, registered under Sections 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) with Women Police Station Solan, District Solan, H.P.

According to the applicant, he is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the above case. Elaborating his stand, he has pleaded, in his application that he is Manager in Hunger’Z Food Chain of Restaurants and had worked in different locations at Una, Shimla, Hamirpur, Kalka, Nalagarh and Palampur for the last four years and lastly joined Solan in the month of October, 2022, where he had worked only for 12 days as he had some operational issues with the owner Sunny.

On 01.11.2022, the applicant quit the job due to his marriage, for which, he had to move to his native place in Jammu & Kashmir. According to him, the allegations were levelled against him falsely by the prosecutrix as he had worked with her only for one day.

According to the applicant, the complainant had already lodged FIR No.15/2020 with Women Police Station Solan, under Sections 376, 354 and 34 IPC, Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act and the trial of the said case is still pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO), Solan.

The applicant has tried his luck before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan, however, his bail application has been dismissed on 27.12.2022.

According to the applicant, investigation in the matter is stated to be complete and nothing is to be recovered from his possession or at his instance and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him in judicial custody. The applicant has pleaded that he is ready and willing to abide by any condition, which may be imposed by this Court, in case, he is released on bail.

On all these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the application may kindly be allowed and the applicant may be released on bail. The application is duly supported by the affidavit of the wife of the applicant.

When put on notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein that on 02.11.2022, the prosecutrix appeared before the Police and moved the application that she is working with Hunger’Z Restaurant and joined there on 29.10.2022. On the next day, i.e. 30. 11.2022, she was deputed to affix the pamphlets, in the city, for one hour. On that day, the accused was with her and when they reached at “Home/Store”, then the accused had forcibly ravished her.

The prosecutrix has further got recorded in her complaint that she could not lodge the FIR, as, when the matter was complained to the higher authorities, they were at Shimla and stated that the accused has already left the job. On all these submissions, she has prayed that action be taken against the accused.

On the basis of above facts, the police registered the FIR and the criminal machinery swung into motion. The medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted on 2. 11.2022. The spot was identified by the complainant. On 11. 12.2022, the accused was brought from his native place to Women Police Station, Solan and was arrested on 12. 12.2022. He was also medically examined. The report under Section 173(2) has been prepared and submitted in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan.

On all these submissions, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application.

Heard.

The prosecutrix has given her age as 20 years, whereas the age of the accused has been mentioned in the status report as 27 years. The role, allegedly played by the applicant, in the alleged ravishment, as per the averments made in the complaint, is yet to be proved during trial and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him in judicial custody. The bail application cannot be rejected just to punish the applicant before trial as pre-trial punishment is prohibited under law. The presumption of innocence is still in favour of the applicant. The chances of commencement of the trial against the accused are not so bright, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in judicial custody. Moreover, his custodial interrogation has not been sought by the police in the status report. The status report is also silent qua the fact as to why the bail application of the applicant should not be allowed.

Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled for bail.

Consequently, the bail application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.34/2022, dated 02.11.2022, registered with Women Police Station, Solan, under Sections 376 and 201 of IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with two local sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan/ Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solan/Ilaka Magistrate.

This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:-

a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly 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 nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer, and

d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

Any observations, made herein above, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined only to the disposal of the present bail application.

It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found to be violated by the bail applicant/ petitioner.

The bail application stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.