Raj Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Petitioner has approached this Court, invoking provisions of Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.PC’), seeking bail in case FIR No. 36 of 2022 dated 9.4.2022, registered under Sections 376, 323, 342, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) in Police Station Kangra, District Kangra H.P.

2 Status report stands filed. Record was also made available. Petitioner has also relied upon certain documents placed on record during pendency of present petition.

As per prosecution case, victim ‘X’, along with her mother ‘Y’, came to Police Station and submitted a complaint with prayer to register FIR against Krishan Arora, Raju Verma, Sham Verma and Ritu Verma for confining the victim in isolated places as well as beating, threatening and raping her on the pretext of marriage. It was stated in application that 20 years old victim came in contact of Krishan Arora, who is running a saloon in Tanda, Tehsil Nagrota Bagwan and they solemnized marriage on 6.5.2020, but 3-4 months after marriage, he cleverly got some documents executed by victim in order to get rid of her and stated that marriage had been dissolved. Ritu Verma, running another saloon adjoining the saloon of Krishan Arora under the name and style of Angel Saloon, was known to Krishan Arora. Thereafter, Krishan Arora handed over victim to Ritu Verma and Raju Verma under threat and pressure upon victim to live with Raju Verma and Raju Verma by saying that she has been sold to these persons. Thereafter in the house of Ritu Verma, Raju Verma raped the victim many times, threatened and beat her and Krishan Arora was always mounting pressure upon victim to have physical relations with Raju Verma, and on refusal, used to beat her badly. Further that, Krishan Arora and Raju Verma forcibly violated her at Raju Verma’s house in presence of Ritu Verma. Ritu Verma also used to beat her badly with proclamation that victim shall be made prostitute to earn money by inviting customers known to them.

4 It has also been stated in complaint that Sham Verma, brother of Raju Verma, who is residing with Raju Verma and Ritu Verma with a farce wall between their residences and who was divorced few years ago, has also beaten, threatened and violated victim so many times. Victim remained in the clutches of aforesaid persons till 30.3.2022 and suffered beatings, threatenings and violation of her person so many times and she was forcibly confined to room and her struggle to escape and run away, so many times, was in vain due to close surveillance of victim by aforesaid persons.

5 On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR has been registered in present case. Statements of mother of victim as well as victim were recorded under Section 161 CrPC on 10.4.2022 and 11.4.2022 respectively. Statement of victim, under Section 164 Cr.PC was recorded before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

6 It has been stated in status report that pending investigation, petitioner along with other co-accused after obtaining interim bail have joined the investigation on 19.4.2022. During investigation, Krishan Arora has produced divorce document dated 01.10.2020 between Krishan Arora and victim, attested by Notary Kangra. Sham Kumar has produced certified affidavits dated 30.09.2020 attested by Notary on 1.10.2020 wherein solemnization of marriage between Victim ‘X’ and Sham Kumar has been certified.

7 Victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC has alleged that Ritu Verma made her to suffer abortion by administering some medicines. Therefore, victim was medically examined in this regard, whereupon Medical Officer has opined that possibility of abortion spontaneous/induced could not be ruled out at the time of examination. Relevant extract of Registers of Notary as well as Stamp Vendor have been taken in possession by police.

8 During investigation, a copy of complaint dated 13.7.2020 filed by Krishan Arora to Gram Pancahayat Jogipur and consent documents of Krishan Arora and victim ‘X’ dated 23.7.2020 and decision of Panchayat dated 23.7.2020 have also been taken in possession from Secretary Gram Panchayat Jogipur. As per these documents, Krishan Arora and victim, had applied for divorce in Gram Panchayat and Gram Panchayat, vide order dated 23.7.2020, with consent of Krishan Arora and victim had directed that till dissolution of marriage, Krishan will be responsible for security and safety of victim and application was further referred to Pardhan.

9 During investigation, it has come in evidence that Raj Kumar and Sham Kumar are real brothers. Ritu is wife of Raj Kumar and Krishan Arora is god brother of Ritu Verma, and Krishan Arora solemnized marriage with victim on 6.5.2020 with Hindu Rites and Rituals and on 13.7.2020 he applied for divorce in Gram Panchayat Jogipur and thereafter, on 1.10.2020 document of divorce was attested by Notary Kangra and on the same day, i.e. 1.10.2020 affidavits of Sham Kumar and victim stating that they had solemnized marriage on 30.9.2020 in Mata Brijeshwari Temple, Kangra according to Hindu Rites and rituals, were attested by Notary.

10 Petitioner has placed on record documents indicating that Manju Devi, mother of victim, was earlier married to one Vinod Kumar and victim is one of four children born out of the said wedlock and, thereafter, Manju Devi started living separately along with her four children. Later on, on solemnization second marriage by her husband Vinod Kumar, she (mother of victim) also solemnized second marriage with one Sunil Kumar. On 18.6.2020, she had submitted a complaint to Station House Officer, Women Police Station Dharamshala with submissions that her first daughter ‘A’ and Ritu Arora played a role of mediators in solemnization of marriage of her second daughter (victim) with Krishan Arora which was solemnized on 6.5.2020 during Lockdown after obtaining permission from competent authority. In this complaint, it was alleged that in-laws of victim did not allow victim to meet her mother and other family members of maternal side and that in-laws of victim were levelling frivolous allegations with regard to character of victim proclaiming that they were in possession of porn video of victim with her stepfather and were quarelling with victim and pressurizing and forcing the victim to live with her sister daughter ‘A’. Further that Krishan Arora and his mother were threatening mother of victim and her second husband to kill them, if they did not manage divorce of victim and Krishan Arora alleging that aforesaid threat was extended on 18.6.2020 at about 11.10 AM at the residence of her elder daughter ‘A’ in presence of her daughter, son-in-law Pankaj Kumar and other neighbours.

11 On the basis of aforesaid complaint, police initiated verification of facts and both sides were called to the Police Station and during that exercise, both sides resolved the dispute whereupon, to that effect statements of both sides were also recorded with consent and mother of victim, who was complainant in that complaint, had requested to close the proceedings in her complaint.

12 On same day, mother of victim had given in writing to Police, asking therein to lodge a complaint, stating therein that her daughter was married on 8.5.2020 but her husband was asking for divorce by saying that her daughter was having friendship with boys prior to marriage and he, on knowing about it, was asking for divorce and it was creating atmosphere of continuous quarrel in matrimonial house of her daughter and lastly, she had requested to resolve the issue.

13 On 30.6.2020 mother of victim and Krishan Arora attended the Women Police Station Dharamshala and gave in writing that both parties, after having dialogue with each other, intended to resolve the dispute amicably. In her statement, mother of victim stated that her son-in-law was taking her daughter to home with him and therefore, she did not have any complaint against him whereas Krishan Arora stated that on knowing about affairs of victim with three boys, he inquired about it from mother of victim, which resulted into altercation between them, whereupon mother of victim filed a complaint in Police Station and he intended to divorce his wife in separate proceedings and till then, he was taking his wife with him.

14 Mother of victim also gave another written statement stating therein that application filed by her against Krishan Arora was got prepared by her from someone which was in English and she could not understand what was written in it and therefore, she withdrew the application by tendering apology with further submissions that what was written in application, came to her knowledge in Police Station which she declared to be incorrect and further that there was nothing as stated in complaint and therefore, she asked to close the complaint. Statement of victim was also recorded to that effect.

15 Other record placed on record by petitioner is with respect to complaint dated 22.4.2021 lodged by victim against Sham to Station House Officer, Women Police Station Dharamshala stating therein that victim’s marriage was solemnized with Sham about 4-5 months ago and her husband, instigated by his brother Ram, used to quarrel with her and beat her, and he was not providing food and maintenance to her leading to differences between husband and wife, and Ram always used to abuse her but her husband never stopped him and always considered that she was wrong every time and, therefore, she did not want to live with her husband. In statement recorded by police, she had also stated that three days ago, her husband had beaten her and Kangra police had come to her home and had taken action and advised her husband not to commit such activities but during same night, her husband slapped her but she did not receive injury and she did not want to be medically checked as 15 days ago, she was got medically examined by police of Kangra Police Station and she was distraught due to domestic violence and, therefore, she did not want to talk with her husband. She has requested to refer her complaint for domestic violence. The aforesaid statement of victim was also entered in daily diary report of Police Station.

16 Sham Kumar was also summoned by Women Police Station who had stated that he was handicapped and was married with victim 5-6 months ago but their relations were strained continuously and he intended to compromise the matter with his wife but his wife was not agreeing for that and was not even talking with him. Lastly, he expressed his desire to keep his wife with him.

17 DDR has also been recorded by police stating therein that victim and her husband came to Police Station and on the basis of statement of victim matter was referred to CDPO Kangra under Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act. The complainant expressed that she did not want to go with her husband but after sometime, she expressed that she would go to her husband however but not along with her husband but alone as on that day, she was not having any threat/danger from him and she intended to go to him.

18 Petitioner has also placed on record prescription slips, OPD slips of victim pertaining to Civil Hospital Kangra as well as Dr. Rejender Prasad Government Medical College and Hospital, Kangra at Tanda to substantiate the plea that victim was under regular treatment for piles but not for alleged abortion. Photographs of victim along with Sham Kumar have also been placed on record to substantiate the solemnization of marriage and to rebut the plea of victim that she was sold by Krishan Arora to Raju Verma and Ritu Verma.

19 Document of divorce between victim and Krishan Arora, has been prepared on stamp of Rs.100/-which was purchased on 17.6.2020 i.e. about after one month of marriage which was solemnized on 6.5.2020. It has been stated in this document that divorce shall take place w.e.f. 1.10.2020. Date of preparation/typing of document mentioned in this document is also 1.10.2020. There is overwriting on the said date mentioned in the document. None of the signatures including witnesses and scribes bears any date. Notary has attested it on 1.10.2020.

20 Affidavit sworn by Sham Verma and victim affirming their marriage bear date of preparation of affidavit as 30.9.2020. As per para 2 of affidavit(s), marriage between Sham Verma and victim was solemnized on 03.09.2020 whereas as per document of divorce victim was wife of Krishan Arora till 1.10.2020. Raj Kumar Verma (husband of Ritu Verma) and Aseem Arora have witnessed all documents i.e. document of divorce and affidavits. Ritu Verma has witnessed divorce document.

21 Learned counsel for petitioner submits that after solemnizing the marriage on 6.5.2020, bitterness in relations of Krishan Arora and Victim was started on account of some disturbing information received by Krishan Arora and, therefore, he was intending to divorce and for that reason, stamp papers were purchased on 17.6.2020 with consent of victim, but thereafter they submitted an application for divorce to Panchayat, which was not decided by Panchayat and, ultimately, Sham Verma had agreed to solemnize the marriage with victim after divorce from Krishan Arora and, therefore, on 1.10.2020, divorce paper was attested which was prepared on stamp paper already purchased on 17.6.2020 and, thereafter, affidavits of affirming solemnization of marriage of Sham Verma and victim, were got attested from Notary on 1.10.2020.

22 It has been further submitted on behalf of petitioner that first marriage of victim was solemnized with active role of her elder sister ‘A’ and Ritu Verma as also stated by mother of victim in complaint filed with police and further it is not a case of selling and purchasing of victim as evident from complaints filed by victim in Women Police Station Dharamshala wherein at the first instance, she alleged domestic violence by Sham Verma mentioning him as her husband and at that time, there was no allegation levelled by her against Ritu Verma and Raj Kumar Verma or Krishan Arora, rather his allegations are with respect to beatings, threatenings and forcible violation of her person have been levelled at a later stage with due consultation with someone in order to frame the petitioner in a false case.

23 Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed grant of bail to petitioner stating that petitioner is involved in heinous crime against a woman and he does not deserve any leniency or favour by granting the discretionary relief of bail.

24 Without commenting on merits of allegations and counter allegations, but taking into account entire facts and circumstances into consideration including previous complaints coupled with factors and parameters, as propounded by the Courts including Supreme Court, required to be considered at the time of adjudication of bail application, I am of the opinion that petitioner may be enlarged on bail in present case at this stage.

25 Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, at this stage, subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and also subject to any further conditions to be imposed by trial Court for assuring his presence during trial including the following further conditions:-

(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available during the investigation as well as trial on each and every date as and when required;

(ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) That the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation as well as trial;

(iv) That the petitioner shall not jump over the bail and shall inform, in writing, regarding change of address, land line number and/or mobile number, if any, in advance, to concerned Police Station;

(v) That the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected or the commission of which he is suspected;

(vi) In the event of repetition of commission of offence, bail granted in present case shall be liable to be cancelled on taking appropriate steps by prosecution/police;

(vii) That the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of Court;

(viii) That petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.

26 It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing any such other or further condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. It will also be open to the trial Court/Magistrate to impose any other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

27 In case the petitioner violates any condition imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

28 Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No. HHC/VIG/Misc.Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.3.2013.

29 Any observation made in this order shall not affect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, they may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.

Petition stands disposed of. Dasti copy on usual terms.