Sandeep Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case

FIR No. 02 of 2020, dated 15.01.2020, under Sections 354, 354A, 451, 506 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, registered in Women Police Station,

Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.

As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of

the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by

keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 15.01.2020, mother of the prosecutrix (complainant) made a written complaint to the

police wherein she alleged that she alongwith her husband and daughters reside in a rented accommodation at Hamirpur and one of her daughters,

prosecutrix (name withheld), is a student of 4th class. On 14.01.2020 when the complainant asked the prosecutix to go to the shop and get some

eatable, the prosecutrix denied to go the shop. When the compainant asked why she is denying to go to the shop, the prosecutrix disclosed that the

shopkeeper indecently touches her. The complainant asked the petitioner (shopkeeper) that why he does such like things, but the petitioner got

infuriated and picked up a quarrel with the complainant. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the

investigation ensued. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the spot map. On 15.01.2020 the petitioner was arrested and

medically examined. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Spot was photographed and records qua date of birth of

the prosecutrix were obtained. As per the police, date of birth record from the Panchayat is yet to be procured. Lastly, it is prayed that in case the

petitioner, at this stage, is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, as he is very clever person.

Petitioner was found involved in a serious crime, so his bail application may be dismissed.

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

the police report, carefully.

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued

that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from

justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when

nothing is to be recovered at his instance. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious

crime and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, as he is very clever person, so it

is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

In rebuttal, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period,

especially when nothing is to be recovered at his instance and is custody is not at all required by the police for further investigation, so the bail

application of the petitioner be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution

evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, as nothing is to be recovered at his instance

for further investigation, also considering the overall material, which has come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, the fact that

the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case so granted, and also the fact that the petitioner cannot be kept

behind the bars for an unlimited period, so this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is

required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police in

case FIR No. 02 of 2020, dated 15.01.2020, under Sections 354, 354A, 451, 506 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, registered in Women Police

Station, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of

`20,000/Â (rupees twenty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 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.