Pankaj Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Petitioner has been accused of offences under Sections 376, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No.30/2020, dated 27.10.2020, registered at Women Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra. Hence, he has preferred instant petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enlargement on bail. Interim protection was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 29.10.2020.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the status report as well as the record made available on the file by the respondent.

According to the status report, the FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint of the prosecutrix received at the police station on 27.10.2020. In this complaint, the prosecutrix submitted that the petitioner started sending messages on her mobile number in the year 2013. Gradually they became well acquainted. Exerting threat of blackmail, petitioner remained in continuous touch with her despite her refusal to maintain any contact with him. Petitioner continually pressurized her to marry him, whereas he was already married, had a son and was also pursuing a divorce petition.

In July, 2019, the prosecutrix got employed as a Clerk in PNB. Immediately thereafter, insistence of the petitioner for marrying him became more vigorous. On 7. 12.2019, while the prosecutrix was returning home in the evening after discharging her duties in the bank, she was forcefully taken by the petitioner to his home, where he established physical relations with her. Even since then, petitioner accompanied the prosecutrix everyday to her workplace and brought her to his home in the evening.

Prosecutrix alleged to have been sexually exploited against her wish by the petitioner w.e.f. 07.10.2019 till 19.10.2020 in this manner. She further alleged that the petitioner did not allow her to meet or talk to anyone during this period. On 19.10.2020, she was beaten up by the petitioner. This fact came to the knowledge of her maternal uncle (Mama), who thereafter brought the prosecutrix to her home from the petitioner's home. It is thereafter that the complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix on 27.10.2020, which led to registration of the FIR in question.

Investigation in the matter ensued. Statements of the witnesses were recorded including the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the status report, pursuant to the directions contained in order dated 29.10.2020, the petitioner has joined the investigation and is co-operating with the Investigating Agency.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner and the prosecutrix have been in a live in relationship for past many years. Prosecutrix was very well aware of the previous marriage of the petitioner and the fact that he had a son from his previous marriage. All three have been together on various occasions. The allegations levelled in the FIR are false. Petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged against him. He is a government employee and is working as Lecturer (School Cadre). He is not in a position to flee or influence the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence. The petitioner will abide by all the terms & conditions, which may be imposed upon him in case of enlargement on bail.

Learned Deputy Advocate General, on the basis of status report, submitted that investigation is still going on. Therefore, he has submitted that in case this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, then stringent conditions may be imposed upon him with direction to continue to co-operate with the Investigating Agency.

The prosecutrix is aged thirty-three years. She is sufficiently mature and well qualified having done M.Sc and B.Ed. She is employed as a Clerk in PNB. During the period in question, i.e. 07.10.2019 to 19.10.2020, she had also discharged her duties in the bank. There is no mention of any complaint preferred by her against the petitioner during the period in question levelling the allegations as alleged in the FIR. Without delving further into the merits of the matter lest it causes prejudice to the case of either party, considering the nature of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, the mode and manner of commission of offences as well as considering the fact that the petitioner is a government servant and resident of Village & Post Office Pathiar, Tehsil Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, HP and is co-operating with the Investigating Agency, no significant purpose will be achieved by sending the petitioner to custody at this stage. Status report does not reflect any previous criminal history of the petitioner. Therefore, the instant bail petition is allowed and the interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 29.10.2020 is made absolute subject to following conditions:-

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

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

(iii). The petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iv). The petitioner shall not contact the complainant or her family members or threaten or browbeat them or to use any pressure tactics.

(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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer.

(vi). In case the petitioner is put to trial, then he shall attend the trial on every hearing, unless exempted in accordance with law.

(vii). 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 details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, E-mail, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any.

It is made clear that 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 also clarified 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 any of the observations made hereinabove.

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

Copy dasti.