Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

The instant bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail, in the event

of his arrest, in case FIR No. 193 of 2021, dated 15.07.2021, under Sections 376, 420 and 500 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police

Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.

As per the petitioner, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of the place, thus neither in a

position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail.

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix (name withheld) made a written complaint to the police alleging that about one

and half years back she was betrothed with one Rajesh Sharma (petitioner herein) and in the month of November a formal betrothal ceremony was

conducted. Thereafter, 5-6 times, the petitioner called her for meeting and on the pretext of marrying her he committed sexual intercourse(s) with her

in hotel(s). The prosecutrix further alleged that just 13-14 days prior to their marriage, the petitioner refused to marry her. Upon the complaint, so

made by the petitioner, the police registered a case under the apt sections of IPC and the investigation commenced. The prosecutrix was medically

examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Police visited the spots of occurrences, effected the relevant recoveries,

prepared the spot maps and recorded the statements of the witnesses. During the course of investigation, the petitioner, upon the direction of the

Hon’ble Court, joined the investigation and since then he is co-operating in it. As per the police, the investigation reveals that the petitioner and the

prosecutrix were engaged and even invitation cards of marriage were distributed, however, the petitioner refused for marriage. Report from RFSL,

Dharamshala, is awaited. Lastly, it is prayed that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and in case, at this stage, if the petitioner is

enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution evidence, so the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

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

police report, carefully.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He is

permanent resident of the place, thus neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further

argued that the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for any purpose, as nothing remains to be recovered at his instance or from

him. Investigation is almost complete and moreover the petitioner, being the local resident, is not in a position to flee from justice. He has prayed that

the bail application be allowed in the above backdrop. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the petitioner was

found involved in a serious offence and the investigation is still going on, so in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the

prosecution evidence or may flee from justice, so the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

In rebuttal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation, as during the period of

interim bail, he has joined the investigation and co-operated in it and he is also ready to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted. He

has argued that considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner is joining the investigation and co-operating

in it, he may be enlarged on bail, by allowing the instant application.

At this stage, considering the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the fact that during the course of investigation the

petitioner joined and co-operated in it, the fact that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place, thus neither in a position to flee from justice nor in

a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, he is ready and willing to abide by

the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, the fact that sending the petitioner behind the bars will not serve any fruitful purpose and also

considering the overall facets of the case and without discussing them elaborately, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial

discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, in this case, is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is

allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 193 of 2021, dated 15.07.2021, under Sections 376, 420, 500

IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, 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 Investigating

Officer. 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.