Ram Prakash 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. 143 of 2021, dated 17.07.2021, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Rampur Bhushehar, District

Shimla, 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, on 17.07.2021 the prosecutrix (name withheld) made a written complaint to the police alleging

that one Ram Prakash (petitioner herein) despite being married, lied to her that he is unmarried. The petitioner gradually succeeded developing

acquaintance with the prosecutrix and on 03.05.2021 he took her to a hotel, where he committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, on three

more occasions he committed sexual intercourse with her and started sending lewd messages. The petitioner also started threatening the prosecutrix

that now onwards, in case she refuses to accompany him, he will tarnish her rapport. Upon the complaint, so made by the prosecutrix, the police

registered a case and the investigation ensued. The police got the prosecutrix medically examined, statements of the witnesses were recorded and

spot maps were prepared. Police visited the spots of occurrence and effected the relevant recoveries. Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164

Cr.P.C. was also recorded. As per the police, DNA report is awaited and after receipt of the same challan will be presented in the learned Trial

Court. 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 Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records,

including the police report, carefully.

The learned Senior 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 has almost culminated and moreover the petitioner, being the local resident, is not able 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 Senior 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, the fact that sending the petitioner

behind the bars will not serve any fruitful purpose and also considering all the 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. 143 of 2021,

dated 17.07.2021, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Rampur Bhushehar, 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 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.