Naresh Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh

By way of this petition the petitoner has prayed for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 86 of 2017 dated 3.4.2017 registered at Police Station Sadar, District Solan under Sections 366, 376 and 506 of IPC. FIR stands lodged on a complaint so filed by the prosecutrix to the effect that accused had established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage and had kept the prosecutrix in his house for a period of 07 days. Subsequently it was revealed that accused was already married. It was further the case of the complainant that after the factum of accused being married came to her knowledge, accused told her that he was a divorcee which fact was also incorrect. According to her when she came to know about these facts, she presented herself before the SDM and then went to her house. As per the prosecutrix thereafter accused was threatening the prosecutrix as well as her brothers and sisters. On these basis the FIR was lodged.

Accused was taken into custody on 4.4.2017 and he is stated to be in judicial custody since April, 2017. Records reveal that challan stands filed in the Court. Mr. Sudhir Thakur learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in a false case which stands concocted against him by the prosecutrix at the behest of her maternal grandmother and her maternal uncle. Mr. Thakur has drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings which were initiated under Section 97 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of complaint filed by maternal grandmother of the prosecutrix and has also drawn the attention of the Court to the statement which was recorded before SDM Solan of the prosecutrix on 29.3.2017 in which she had stated that respondent had not forcibly confined her at his house. Mr. Thakur has further submitted that the petitioner even otherwise is a permanent resident of VPO Damkari Tehsil and District Solan and his custody is otherwise also not required because no recovery etc. is to be effected from him and he be released on bail and the petitioner undertakes that he will not in any manner interfere in the course of investigation.

Learned Deputy Advocate General on the other hand has submitted that as the statement of prosecutrix has not yet been recorded it will not be prudent to release the accused on bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the status report which has been filed by learned Deputy Advocate General.

Records demonstrate that before the present FIR was lodged against the accused by the prosecutrix, a complaint was filed by the maternal grandmother of the prosecutrix on 17.3.2017 before SDM Solan to the effect that prosecutrix had run away with the accused at around 11:00 am on 15.3.2017 and that prosecutrix had also took with her an amount of Rs. 50,000/- along with some jewellary. Records further demonstrate that on 16.3.2017 there is entry in the DDR at Police Station Solan at the behest of the prosecutrix against her maternal grandmother and maternal uncle to the effect that they were physically abusing her and were ill treating her. A perusal of the said DDR also demonstrates that prosecutrix had stated therein that she was more than 21 years of age and did not intend to live in the house of her maternal grandmother and maternal uncle. Lodging of FIR No. 86 of 2017 against the petitioner under Sections 366, 376 and 506 of IPC is a subsequent event.

Whether or not the petitioner is guilty is yet to be adjudicated by the learned trial court. Prima facie there appears to be merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been implicated in the case by the prosecutrix at the behest of his maternal grandmother and maternal uncle. Therefore taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case in my considered view this is fit case when the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court, subject to the following conditions:- i) 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;

ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

iii) 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

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

It is clarified that the observations made by this Court in this order are only for the purpose of adjudicating upon the present bail petition and the learned trial court shall not be influenced by any of these observations while deciding the case on merits, in the course of trial. It shall be open for the prosecution to move this Court for cancellation of the bail in case petitioner abuses the bail which has been granted in his favour. Copy dasti.