CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Sandeep Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 27 October 2022 · Citation: (2022) 10 SHI CK 0029

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376(2)(n) · Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66E, 67A
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 2287 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 363 words

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

1.

By way of this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail in FIR No. 29/2022, dated 20.07.2022, registered under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66E & 67A of the Information Technology Act at Women Police Station, Mandi, District Mandi, HP.

2.

Status report filed, which is perused and taken on record.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case by the complainant. He further submitted that the petitioner was having healthy relationship with the prosecutrix as well as the mother of the prosecutrix and the story which has been put forth by the prosecution is totally concocted and he is not guilty of the offences alleged against him. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for grant of bail.

4.

Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail, inter alia, on the ground that the allegations which have been levelled against the petitioner are grave and heinous and a similar petition filed by the petitioner before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. has been rejected by the said Court on 21.09.2022 and learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any change in circumstances so as to warrant interference by this Court in the present proceedings. He further submitted that otherwise also, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner happens to be a permanent resident of Hari Nagar, Panipat, Haryana and, therefore, if released on bail, there is every possibility that the petitioner may jump over the bail and it will be difficult for the learned Trial Court to secure his presence for the purpose of trial and he may try to influence the witnesses. Accordingly, he prayed for rejection of the bail.

5.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has instructions to withdraw the petition, but with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court afresh, if so advised. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.