Rajesh Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh

The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 73 of 2017, dated 19.04.2017, registered under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"), Police Station Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P.

As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, thus he may be released on bail.

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 19.04.2017, the prosecutrix (name withheld) alongwith her mother, Smt. Lalita Devi, filed a written complaint against the petitioner wherein it was alleged by the prosecutrix that she and the petitioner had a love affair. The petitioner, on the pretext of marrying the prosecutrix, established sexual relations with her for four years. However, the petitioner did not marry her and engaged himself with another girl. The prosecutrix has further alleged that the petitioner told her to keep silent and take some money for keeping mum. Police, on the basis of the complaint filed by the prosecutrix, investigated the matter. The prosecutrix was got medically examined. Statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she reiterated the contents of the complaint and alleged that the petitioner also intimidated her with dire consequences. Police prepared the spot map and photographs of the room of the prosecutrix were also taken. Statements of the witnesses, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., were also recorded. The petitioner was also medically examined and his underwear and vest were taken into possession. The samples of nails, pubic hair, sperm and blood etc. were also taken. Investigation further revealed that in the year 2014, when the prosecutrix was doing computer course from ITI Shahpur, she met the petitioner. They developed friendship and the petitioner used to come to her house. The petitioner promised to marry the prosecutrix and on this pretext he developed sexual relationship with the prosecutrix, but in March, 2017, the prosecutrix came to know that the petitioner is going to marry another girl. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed for dismissal of the present application.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and have gone through the record, including the police report, carefully.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further argued that the petitioner is resident of place and is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidenced and also not in a position to flee from justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Hon''ble High Court rendered in Harpal Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2014 (3) Shimla Law Cases 1789, wherein the petitioner (accused) has allegedly committed offence under Sections 376, 452 and 506 IPC and he approached the Court seeking bail. In the case (supra) the Court held that there is no apprehension made out by State that in the event of petitioner being enlarged on bail, he would tamper with witnesses or extend any threats to complainant. The Court has also observed that there is no probability of petitioner abusing his liberty nor would he interfere or in any manner impede with course of justice. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a very serious crime and keeping in view the seriousness of the crime there are chances that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail he may tamper with the prosecution evidence, so the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

At this stage, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as above, and also the fact that the petitioner is a resident of the place, he is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and flee from justice and also taking into consideration the judgment rendered in Harpal Singh''s case (supra), the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 73 of 2017, dated 19.04.2017, registered under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC, Police Station Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:

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

(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.