Mohd. Yusuf And Others vs Vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

Both these petitions filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of regular bail, are being disposed of by a common order as both arise out of the same FIR, i.e. FIR No. 112 of 2020, dated 03.09.2020, registered at Police Station Kihar, District Chamba, H.P, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, against present two accused and one Issar Mohammad.

I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) as well as learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the status report which has been filed by the State.

It is not in dispute that as far as the allegations vis-a-vis offence envisaged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is against accused Issar Mohammad, who is not the bail petitioner before this Court. The allegations against the petitioners before this Court primarily are that they purportedly planned and assisted kidnapping of the minor girl, who was reluctant in marrying the third accused (Issar Mohammad), but, as per prosecution, was being forced by petitioner Mohd. Yusuf, either to marry Issar Mohammad or to some other person of his choice. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the offence alleged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is admittedly not directed against either of the petitioners before this Court. Further, the investigation in the case is complete and challan also stands filed. In these circumstances, in my considered view, now no purpose is going to be served by keeping the petitioners in custody, as admittedly, they are not habitual offenders. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed by ordering release of the petitioners in FIR No. 112 of 2020, dated 03.09.2020, registered at Police Station Kihar, District Chamba, under Section 363, 366-A 376 and 120-B of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, on their furnishing personal bail bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- each, with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court within a period of two weeks, subject however to the following conditions:-

i) Petitioners 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;

ii) They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

iii) They 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

iv) They shall not leave the territory of State of Himachal Pradesh without prior permission of the Court.

It is clarified that grant of bail in favour of present petitioners shall per se not come to the rescue other co-accused, in case, any bail petition is filed by him. It is further 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 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 the trial of the case. It is also clarified that in case the petitioners do not comply with the conditions which have been imposed upon them while granting the 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.

Copy dasti.