Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3336 HP

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                         Cr.MP(M) No. 1368 of 2021
                                                         Decided on: 2nd August, 2021




                                                                                  .
    Rajesh Kumar                                                                     ....Petitioner





                                                 Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh                                                        ...Respondent

    Coram





    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
    For the petitioner:                          Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri,                       Advocate
                                                 (through video conferencing).





    For the respondent/State:                    Mr. Arvind Sharma, Additional Advocate
                                                 General, with Mr. Amit Dhumal, Deputy
                                                 Advocate General.

                                  ASI Kailash Chand, Investigating Officer,

                                  Police Station Nurpur, H.P.
    ______________________________________________________________________
    Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral)

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. 193 of 2021,

dated 15.07.2021, under Sections 376, 420 and 500 IPC read with

Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra,

H.P.

2. As per the petitioner, he is innocent and has been falsely

implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of the place,

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

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.

3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, the

.

prosecutrix (name withheld) made a written complaint to the police

alleging that about one and half years back she was betrothed with one

Rajesh Sharma (petitioner herein) and in the month of November a

formal betrothal ceremony was conducted. Thereafter, 5-6 times, the

petitioner called her for meeting and on the pretext of marrying her he

committed sexual intercourse(s) with her in hotel(s). The prosecutrix

further alleged that just 13-14 days prior to their marriage, the

petitioner refused to marry her. Upon the complaint, so made by the

petitioner, the police registered a case under the apt sections of IPC

and the investigation commenced. The prosecutrix was medically

examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.

Police visited the spots of occurrences, effected the relevant recoveries,

prepared the spot maps and recorded the statements of the witnesses.

During the course of investigation, the petitioner, upon the direction of

the Hon'ble Court, joined the investigation and since then he is co-

operating in it. As per the police, the investigation reveals that the

petitioner and the prosecutrix were engaged and even invitation cards

of marriage were distributed, however, the petitioner refused for

marriage. Report from RFSL, Dharamshala, is awaited. 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.

.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned

Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the

records, including the police report, carefully.

5. The learned 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 is almost complete

and moreover the petitioner, being the local resident, is not in a

position 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.

6. In rebuttal, the learned 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.

7. 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, he is ready and willing to abide by the terms and

conditions of bail, in case granted, the fact that sending the petitioner

behind the bars will not serve any fruitful purpose and also considering

the overall 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. 193 of 2021, dated 15.07.2021, under

Sections 376, 420, 500 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered at

Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, 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.

8.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

Copy dasti.

( Chander Bhusan Barowalia ) Judge

2nd August, 2021 (virender)