Sugreev vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 913 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 159 of 2021 Reserved on: 29th January, 2021.

.

Date of Decision: 4th February, 2021.

    Sugreev                                                           ...Petitioner.

                                    Versus





    State of H.P.                                                          ...Respondent.

    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting?1 NO

    For the petitioner:     rMr.Amit Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Narinder Singh Thakur and Kamal Kant,

Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Manoj Bagga, Asstt.

                        A.G


                             THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE


        FIR No.   Dated           Police Station      Sections




        57/2020   3.8.2020        Jubbal, Shimla      363, 366A, 376, IPC & S.4, 6 and
                                                      17, POCSO Act





    Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

The petitioner, who is an unmarried young boy, incarcerating upon his

arrest for alluring and raping a minor girl, aged 15 years, has come up before this Court seeking regular bail.

2. A perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner straightaway filed the bail petition before High Court, which is permissible given the decision of a three Judges Bench of HP High Court, in Mohan Lal v Prem Chand, AIR 1980 HP 36, (Para 9 &

15), wherein the Full bench holds that a person can directly apply for an anticipatory bail or regular bail to the High Court without first invoking the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge.

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

3. The bail petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Amit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the bail petitioner states on instructions that the petitioner has no

.

criminal past relating to the offences prescribing sentence of seven years and more,

or when on conviction, the sentence imposed was more than three years. The status report also does not mention any criminal past of the accused.

4. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that the victim aged 15 years was allegedly allured by the petitioner on 2.8.2020. The petitioner is a resident of village Doda in Jammu. On 10.8.2020, she was traced with the petitioner in an orchard, where the petitioner had started working. After that, the police brought the

victim to Civil Hospital, Jubbal, where she refused to undergo medico-legal examination. Subsequently, her statement under Section 164, Cr.PC was recorded on 18.8.2020 and she testified that the accused had committed penetrative sex with her.

Upon this, she was taken to the hospital, where the doctor opined that on the basis of

clinical examination, possibility of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. The examining doctor obtained genetic material from her body and also from her privates for the purpose of DNA matching. The police arrested the accused and preserved the

beddings from the hut. Similarly, the accused was also medically examined. Thereafter, their genetic material alongwith clothes were sent to Forensic Science

Laboratory, Junga for DNA matching. The laboratory concluded that the genetic material of victim and accused and that, which was found from the mattress matched

with each other. Based on these allegations, the Police registered the FIR mentioned above.

5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

6. On the contrary, the contention on behalf of the State is that the accused eloped with a minor and if this Court is inclined to grant bail, then such a bond must be subject to very stringent conditions.

7. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the

evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.

REASONING:

.

8. The victim is a minor. She could not have consented to sex. However, given

the conduct of the victim that intially she refused to get herself medically examined and the fact that in the orchard, where she stayed with the accused for eight days, she

did not tell her being allured to anyone would at least not justify further incarceration of the accused. Prima facie, it appears to be a case where case of the young persons going intimate with each other.

9. An analysis of entire evidence does not justify further incarceration of the

accused, nor is going to achieve any significant purpose. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the stage of the investigation and the period of incarceration already undergone would make out a case for bail.

10. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner makes out a case for release on bail.

11. Given the above reasoning, the Court is granting bail to the petitioner, subject

to strict terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

12. In Manish Lal Shrivastava v State of Himachal Pradesh, CrMPM No. 1734 of 2020, after analysing judicial precedents, this Court observed that any Court

granting bail with sureties should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or give a fixed deposit, with a further option to switch over to another.

13. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR mentioned above, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), and shall furnish two sureties of a similar amount, to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate having the jurisdiction over the Police Station conducting the investigation, and in case of non-availability, any Ilaqa Magistrate. Before accepting the sureties, the concerned Magistrate must satisfy that in case the accused fails to appear in Court, then such sureties are capable to produce the accused before the Court, keeping in mind the Jurisprudence behind the sureties, which is to secure the presence of the accused.

14. In the alternative, the petitioner may furnish aforesaid personal bond and fixed deposit(s) for Rs. Twenty-five thousand only (INR 25,000/-), made in favour of

.

"Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Shimla, H.P.,"

a) Such Fixed deposits may be made from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50%, or any of the stable private banks, e.g., Bank of

America, Chase, HSBC, City Bank, HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, etc., with the clause of automatic renewal of principal, and liberty of the interest reverting to the linked account.

b) Such a fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the account of the petitioner and need not be a single fixed deposit.

c) If such a fixed deposit is made in physical form, i.e., on paper, then the

original receipt shall be handed over to the concerned Court.

d) If made online, then its printout, attested by any Advocate, and if possible, countersigned by the accused, shall be filed, and the depositor shall get the online liquidation disabled.

e)

The petitioner or his Advocate shall inform at the earliest to the concerned branch of the bank, that it has been tendered as surety. Such

information be sent either by e-mail or by post/courier, about the fixed deposit, whether made on paper or in any other mode, along with its number as well as FIR number.

f) After that, the petitioner shall hand over such proof along with

endorsement to the concerned Court.

g) It shall be total discretion of the petitioner to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits. It shall also be open for the petitioner to apply for substitution of fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa.

h) Subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, if any, the entire amount of fixed deposit along with interest credited, if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor(s). Such Court shall have a lien over the deposits up to the

expiry of the period mentioned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, or until discharged by substitution as the case may be.

15. The furnishing of the personal bonds shall be deemed acceptance of the following and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order:

a) The petitioner to execute a bond for attendance to the concerned Court(s). Once the trial begins, the petitioner shall not, in any manner, try to delay the proceedings, and undertakes to appear before the concerned Court and to attend the trial on each date, unless exempted. In case of an appeal, on this very bond, the petitioner also promises to appear before the higher Court in terms of Section 437-A CrPC.

b) The attesting officer shall, on the reverse page of personal bonds, mention the permanent address of the petitioner along with the phone number(s), WhatsApp number (if any), e-mail (if any), and details of personal bank account(s) (if available), and in case of any change, the petitioner shall

immediately and not later than 30 days from such modification, intimate about the change of residential address and change of phone numbers, WhatsApp number, e-mail accounts, to the Police Station of this FIR to the concerned Court.

.

c) The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to

tamper with the evidence.

d) The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer; and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as may be required. In the event of failure to

do so, it will be open for the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail. Whenever the investigation occurs within the police premises, the petitioner shall not be called before 8 AM and shall be let off before 5 PM, and shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

e)

In addition to standard modes of processing service of summons, the

concerned Court may serve or inform the accused about the issuance of summons, bailable and non-bailable warrants the accused through E-Mail (if any), and any instant messaging service such as WhatsApp, etc. (if any). [Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, I.A. No. 48461/2020- July

10, 2020]:

i. At the first instance, the Court shall issue the summons.

ii. In case the petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the specified date, in that eventuality, the concerned Court may issue bailable

warrants.

iii. Finally, if the petitioner still fails to put in an appearance, in that eventuality, the concerned Court may issue Non-Bailable Warrants to

procure the petitioner's presence and may send the petitioner to the Judicial custody for a period for which the concerned Court may deem fit and proper to achieve the purpose.

16. The petitioner shall neither stare, stalk, make any gestures, remarks, call, contact, message the victim, either physically, or through phone call or any other social media, nor roam around the victim's home.

17. During the trial's pendency, if the petitioner repeats or commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condition as stipulated in this order, the State may move an appropriate application before this

Court, seeking cancellation of this bail. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall continue to remain in force throughout the trial and after that in terms of Section 437-A of the CrPC.

.

18. Any Advocate for the petitioner and the Officer in whose presence the

petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of this bail order, in vernacular and if not feasible, in Hindi.

19. In case the petitioner finds the bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for modification of such term(s), the petitioner may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even to the Court taking cognizance or the

trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition.

20. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or

the investigating agency from further investigation per law.

21. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

22. In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the

accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.

23. The SHO of the concerned Police Station or the Investigating Officer shall

arrange to send a copy of this order, preferably a soft copy, to the victim, at the earliest. In case the victim notices any objectionable behavior or violation of any

terms or conditions of this order, the victim may inform the SHO of the concerned Police Station or the Trial Court or even to this Court.

24. There would be no need for a certified copy of this order for furnishing bonds. Any Advocate for the petitioner can download this order along with the case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. In case the attesting officer or the Court wants to verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

The petition stands allowed in the terms mentioned above.

(Anoop Chitkara) Vacation Judge Feb 4, 2021 (mamta)