Vinod Kumar vs State Of H.P.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 14/2020, dated 13.03.2020, registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code at Mahila Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

The petitioner is stated to be in custody since 15.03.2020. The allegation against the petitioner is that on the night of 12.03.2020, he outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix by giving her the allurement of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are totally false and baseless. He submits that the petitioner is serving in the armed forces, who had come to his Home Town after availing leave. Learned counsel states that the prosecutrix otherwise also is habitual of levelling false allegations and previously also, she had levelled similar allegations not only against her husband, but also certain friends of her husband, which allegations were found to be incorrect and a cancellation report was accordingly filed in the appropriate Court by the Police. He further states that the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 20.03.2020, which he has appended with an application which was subsequently filed in this bail petition, in which, the prosecutrix states that the FIR has been lodged on account of some mis-understanding and she intends to withdraw the same. He further submits that in the event of grant of bail in favour of the petitioner, he shall abide by the conditions imposed upon him and there is no possibility of his jumping the bail, as he is a local resident of District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submits that taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, the bail petition be dismissed, because there is a possibility and probability that in case the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, he may hamper the course of investigation of the case and may also try to win over the witnesses being a local resident.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant documents on record, including the status report.

The allegation against the petitioner primarily is that on 12th March, 2020, he met the prosecutrix in the School Bazaar and thereafter dropped the prosecutrix on his Bike at her house. In between 9:30 and 10:00 p.m., the petitioner again came to the room of the prosecutrix and established physical relations with her against her will and consent on the allurement of marriage. Status report further contains that the investigation has revealed that the prosecutrix and petitioner were in contact with each other on mobile since the month of February, 2020 and the MLC of the petitioner demonstrated that he was not incapable of performing sexual intercourse.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings on record, including status report and further taking into consideration the fact that both the petitioner and the prosecutrix, admittedly, are major, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose will be solved by detaining the petitioner in custody. Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged against him, is a matter of trial and learned Trial Court will pass appropriate orders on merit in this regard, based upon the evidence which shall be led by the parties concerned. However, taking into consideration the primary accusation against the petitioner that he purportedly outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix on the allurement of marriage and the fact that prosecutrix and accused were previously known to each other, this Court is of the view that the petitioner be released on bail, as no fruitful purpose shall be served by detaining him in custody. No recovery etc. is to be effected from him and at this stage, his being retained in custody is not going to serve any purpose, as it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has previous history also of committing such like offence, as alleged against him. As far as the apprehension of the State is concerned that the petitioner may hamper the course of investigation or may try to win over the witnesses, this Court is of the view that the apprehension of the State can be taken care of by imposing severe conditions upon the petitioner.

Accordingly, this bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bail bond in the sum of rupees One Lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, H.P. However, the grant of bail is subject to the following conditions:

"(a) Petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every date of hearing;

(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer;

(d) In the event of the petitioner indulging in winning the witnesses over or thwarting the course of justice by virtue of grant of bail in his favour, the State shall be at liberty to approach this Court for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner."

For the purpose of furnishing of security, necessary pass, if required, be issued by the Authorities in favour of the surety(s), subject to the protocol that is being followed on account of COVID-19 pandemic situation, as is prevailing in the State. Petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.