Munish Kumar vs State Of H.P

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

The petitioner is a co-accused alongwith three others in FIR No. 115/2019, dated 7.11.2019 registered at Police Station, Panchrukhi, District

Kangra, under Sections 341, 323, 354, 354-A, 376, 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 4, 8 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act

and Section 67A of Information Technology Act.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the status report as well as the documents placed on record.

According to the status report, on 7.11.2019 one Aman Kumar submitted a complaint at the Police Station reporting following incidents of

2.11.2019:-

3(i) On 2.11.2019 Aman and his brother Nitin alongwith their female friends ‘A’ and ‘B’ (names with-held) after spending some time

near Dharamdei bridge started going on foot towards Panchrukhi along side railway track.

3(ii) All above referred four were stopped by four persons, now accused in FIR in question. Three of them held dandas in their hands. One of the

accused slapped Aman. Another one gave beating to Nitin. It was also reported that one of the accused, later identified as Surjeet, caught hold of

prosecutrix (’A’) and kissed her. He pressed her breasts and slipped his hand inside her salwar. Later on prosecutrix ‘A’ told Aman

that Surjeet had inserted his finger inside her vagina. All this was video-graphed by one of the accused, later on identified as Abhishek.

3(iii) The other prosecutrix ‘B’ attempted to run away from the spot. She was statedly chased by the bail petitioner. The mobile phones of the

victims were statedly snatched by the accused persons but were returned to them later on.

3(iv) The video so prepared by one of the accused was displayed on social media, which prompted Aman to report the matter to the police on

7.11.2019 leading to registration of instant FIR.

3(v) During investigation the statements of prosecutrix ‘A’ and ‘B’ were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 11.11.2019 wherein

prosecutrix ‘A’ did not implicate the bail petitioner, however, prosecutrix ‘B’ stated that while attempting to flee from the spot she was

chased by the bail petitioner.

3(vi) According to the status report, both the prosecutrix ‘A’ and ‘B’ were minor on the date of occurrence of the alleged offence with

their dates of birth being 29.3.2004 and 17.7.2004, respectively. Further, according to the status report, RFSL, Dharamshala, has furnished report

according to which the video clip in question was found in the mobile phones of all the accused. The challan in the matter has been presented before

the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dharamshala on 26.6.2020.

3(vii) A previous bail petition preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala vide common order

dated 16.6.2020 passed in three bail petitions preferred by the accused persons on the ground that the petitioner may win-over the young aged

prosecutrix and considering the gravity of the offences alleged against him and the other co-accused he does not deserve enlargement on bail.

During hearing of the case, it has been submitted by learned Counsel for the parties that one of the accused Sanjeev has been enlarged on bail on

17.7.2020 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and subsequently another accused Abhishek has also been enlarged on bail by learned Special Judge,

Kangra at Dharamshala on 31.7.2020 In such circumstances, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for enlargement of the petitioner on bail on

account of the fact that he is behind the bar w.e.f. 7.11.2019 and also in view of the fact that the challan in the matter stands already presented and

allegations against the petitioner is that he had chased prosecutrix ‘B’. Whereas, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that in

case the Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, then he be put to strict terms and conditions for not threatening or intimidating the prosecution

witnesses as well as for not tempering with the prosecution evidence.

The complaint about the incidents of 2.11.2019 was lodged on 7.11.2019. The complaint was not made by the prosecutrix themselves but by their

friend Aman. The complainant had stated that they would not have registered the FIR had the video-clip been not uploaded on the social media.

Whether all four accused have committed the alleged offences in furtherance of their common intention or not, in the facts and circumstances of the

case is yet to be proved during trial by leading cogent evidence. Considering the nature of allegations vis-a-vis all the above aspects and the fact that

specifi allegation at the moment against the petitioner is that he had chased one of the prosecutrix coupled with the fact that two of the accused

persons have already been enlarged on bail, in my considered opinion no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing the petitioner in custody any

further. Petitioner belongs to village Sagoor Khas, Post Office, Sagoor, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., therefore, his presence can be secured

in the trial. Therefore, the present bail petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-

with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court having jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station, subject to the

following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall join the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law and shall cooperate

with the Investigating Agency.

(ii) The petitioner shall not temper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever:

(iii) The petitioner shall not contact the complainant party, threaten or browbeat them or to use any pressure tactics in any manner whatsoever.

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(v) The petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with

the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer;

(vi) The petitioner shall attend the trial on every hearing, unless exempted in accordance with law.

(vii) The petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any

change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone

Number, E-mail, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any.

In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondent-State shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of

the bail. It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an

opinion on the merits of the matter. Learned trial Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by above observations.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

The parties shall not insist upon for obtaining certified copy of this order and shall download the same from the website of the High Court. However,

the Registry is directed to send copy of this order to learned counsel for the parties through email subject to furnishing email addresses by them, if so

required.

Copy of this judgment, duly authenticated by the Secretary, be supplied to learned counsel for the parties, if so requested.