Roop Lal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Petitioner, who has been arrested for commission of offence under Section 376 IPC with complainant, has approached this Court, seeking regular

bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 18 of 2020, dated 6.8.2020, registered in Women Police Station, Bilaspur, under Sections 376, 498-A,

506 and 34 IPC.

Status report stands filed, wherein it is stated that complainant had approached the Women Police Station on 6.8.2020 along with a complaint,

stating therein that she has been married to one Rajinder Kumar, son of the petitioner who is serving in private company at Parwanoo and used to

come to village occasionally but keep on quarreling with her. It was further stated in the complaint that on 25.10.2019, her mother-in-law had gone to

her daughter’s house and only she and her father-in-law (petitioner) were at home and during night, at about 10:30 P.M., her father-in-law

(petitioner) after consuming liquor, had knocked at her door and the moment she had opened the door, he had pushed her on the bed and had violated

her person forcibly. When she disclosed the incident to her mother-in-law and husband, they also snubbed her and pressurized her for compromise and

Panchayat Pradhan had also pressurized her for compromise. On the basis this complaint, FIR in present case was registered and petitioner was

arrested on 7.8.2020 after recording statement of complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur.

In sequel to order passed on previous date, respondent-State has placed on record extract of Entry register of Serologic Test Syphilis (ST) of Civil

Hospital, Bilaspur, wherein names of persons, who had been subjected to test for Syphilis, have been entered. Copy of extract of register has also

been supplied to petitioner along with copy of challan. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record copy of challan and documents

supplied to petitioner along with that.

Referring copy of extract of register, referred supra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per complaint, incident had taken place on

25.10.2019 and as a matter of fact no such incident had happened and it has also come on record, as evident from the documents supplied to the

petitioner along with challan, that complainant was suffering from Syphilis and as per opinion given by Doctor, on the request of SHO, Women Police

Station, Bilaspur, Syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease and also spreads from direct person to person contact with Syphilis infected person. After

detection of this disease, husband of complainant had asked her from whom she had infected, whereupon she leveled allegation on her husband that he

was suffering from Syphilis, whereupon husband of complainant had undergone the test and found negative. Thereafter, complainant leveled allegation

on her father-in-law, that she has suffered from this disease on account of violation of her person by her father-in-law (petitioner) and thereafter her

father-in-law (petitioner) had also undergone test on 13.1.2020 and was found negative, whereas complainant was found positive on 13.11.2019 as

well as on 7.1.2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is wrong to suggest that on the basis of extract of register it transpired that petitioner had

undergone treatment of Syphilis, rather as a matter of fact, he has undergone the test for verifying the fact as to whether he was suffering from

Syphilis. It is also submitted on behalf of petitioner that neither husband of victim nor father-in-law (petitioner) were or are suffering from Syphilis and,

in case, they would have come in contact of complainant, they would have also been suffering from the same disease.

It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that complainant, infact, intends to divorce her husband, which had reflected during conversation between the

parties before the Panchayat, as has also come in evidence during investigation in the statement of Sat Dev. The circumstances in which petitioner,

complainant and her husband had undergone the test, have also come on record in the statement of Sat Dev, Daulat Ram and Surinder Kumar. It is

also contended on behalf of petitioner that after verification of the facts before Panchyat as well as villagers, complainant had apologized for leveling

false allegations against her father-in-law and thereafter she along with her child had left the house of her in-laws and had gone to her parental house.

The said compromise had taken place on 15.3.2020 and complaint on the basis of which FIR has been lodged was made to police on 6.8.2020.

Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that petitioner is facing accusation for commission of a heinous crime and, therefore, he is not entitled

for bail and he may repeat same offence again.

Considering the entire material on record, as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, which has been supplied to the petitioner by the

prosecution itself along with challan, I find that it is a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on

bail, in present case, 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,

upon such further conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the trial Court, including the conditions enumerated hereinafter, so as to ensure the

presence of the petitioner at the time of trial:-

(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case 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 him/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/trial;

(iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected;

(v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner;

(vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail;

(vii) that he shall keep on informing about the change in address, landline number and/or mobile number, if any, for his availability to Police and/or

during trial;

(viii) he shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary

in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and thereupon, it will also be open to the trial Court to impose any other or

further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

In case the petitioner violates any conditions 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.

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 18.03.2013.

Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of

the bail application.

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, he may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.