Pritam Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

The present bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been maintained by the petitioner for grant of bail in case FIR No. 155/2021, dated 29.09.2021, under Sections 363, 366, 366­A and 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Bhawarna, 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 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 27.09.2021 father of the prosecutrix (complainant) made a complaint to the police and alleged that on 25.09.2021, he alongwith his family was at Village Chulla. Around 6:30 P.M. the prosecutrix, who is a student of 12th Standard, went to urinate, and after 15­20 minutes, when she did not return, they started searching her and came to know that petitioner Pritam Singh, who also lives in Village Chulla, is missing from his house. Thereafter, the complainant made a call to petitioner’s mobile and talked to her daughter, who told him that she is at Nagla­ Varan, U.P. and coming back to home. However, when prosecutrix did not return, the complainant again contacted her and she told that the petitioner is not letting her come. As per the complainant, the petitioner took his minor daughter on the pretext of marriage. Consequently, FIR No. 155/2021, dated 29.09.2021, under Sections 363, 366, 366­A and 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act came to be registered against the petitioner and the investigation ensued. The accused was arrested on 29.09.2021. During interrogation accused disclosed that he has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix at Nagla­ Varan Shiv Mandir, U.P. and also admitted to have committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a heinous crime and there is possibility that in case at this stage the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice and also tamper with the prosecution evidence.

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

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has further argued that the petitioner is 19 years of age and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. She has further argued that the petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. She has argued that keeping in view the material, which has come on record, and also the age of the petitioner, 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, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have occurred, the fact that there is love affair between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, the fact that the petitioner is 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 the same 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 petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 155/2021, dated 29.09.2021, under Sections 363, 366, 366­A and 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Bhawarna, District Shimla, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/­ (rupees twenty 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.