Pankaj Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of bail in case

FIR No. 07/2021, dated 12.01.2021, under Sections 452, 376(1) and 506 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra,

H.P.

As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, he is permanent

resident of Himachal Pradesh and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful

purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 12.01.2021, the prosecutrix (name withheld) along with her husband went to Police

Station, Baijnath and reported that her husband works in a private company at Nalagarh, whereas, she reside with her two children. For their daily

expenditure, her husband has given ATM Card to her. The prosecutrix does not know how to operate ATM Card and as such, she used to take the

petitioner for withdrawal of money from ATM every month and the petitioner frequently used to visit her house. On 04.01.2021 around 9.00 p.m. the

petitioner went to the house of the prosecutrix and by taking advantage of the fact that she is alone in the house, committed rape upon her. He also

threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone, otherwise he will tarnish her reputation in the society. Due to threat given by the petitioner, the

prosecutrix did not disclose about the sexual assault committed upon her to anybody. On 07.01.2021, husband of the prosecutrix came back home

from Nalagarh and on 09.01.2021, she mustered courage and disclosed the entire incident to her husband. However, after disclosing the incident, the

prosecutrix being afraid of her reputation consumed insecticide. Thereafter she was taken to Baijnath Hospital, from where, she was referred to

Tanda Hospital. On 11.01.2021, she was discharged from the hospital. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, FIR No. 07/2021, dated 12.01.2021, under

Sections 452, 376(1) and 506 of IPC, came to be registered against the petitioner. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be

dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a heinous crime and there is possibility that in case, at this stage, he is enlarged on bail, he may

tamper with the prosecution evidence and also flee from justice.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the

police report(s), carefully.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been implicated in this case. He has further argued that the

petitioner is permanent resident of District Kangra and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from

justice and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has argued that keeping in view the

material, which has come on record, and also the age of the petitioner and that of the prosecutrix, the bail application be allowed. Conversely, the

learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a heinous offence, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on

bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be

dismissed.

At this stage, considering the age of the petitioner and that of the prosecutrix, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have occurred, the fact

that the petitioner is behind the bars for more than five months, the fact that the petitioner is permanent resident of District Kangra and neither in a

position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the conditions of

bail, if so granted. So considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing them at this stage and also the fact that the

petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the

petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has

been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 07/2021, dated 12.01.2021, under Sections 452, 376(1) and 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station

Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith, in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/Â‐

(rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the

following conditions:

(i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required.

(ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iii) That the petitioner will not directly or indirectly 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 Investigating Officer or Court.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

Copy dasti.