Roop Lal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4 HP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                                                   .
                                                       Cr.M.P(M) No. 2111 of 2020





                                                       Date of decision: 1.1.2021

    Roop Lal.                                                                      ...Petitioner.





                                               Versus

    State of Himachal Pradesh.                                                   ...Respondent.

    Coram


    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1

    For the Petitioner:                   Mr.Prashant Sharma, Advocate, through
                                          Video Conferencing.

    For the Respondent:                   Mr.Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate



                                          General, through Video Conferencing.




                       Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral)

Petitioner, who has been arrested for commission of

offence under Section 376 IPC with complainant, has approached this

Court, seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.

18 of 2020, dated 6.8.2020, registered in Women Police Station,

Bilaspur, under Sections 376, 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC.

2. Status report stands filed, wherein it is stated that

complainant had approached the Women Police Station on 6.8.2020

along with a complaint, stating therein that she has been married to

one Rajinder Kumar, son of the petitioner who is serving in private

company at Parwanoo and used to come to village occasionally but

keep on quarreling with her. It was further stated in the complaint that

on 25.10.2019, her mother-in-law had gone to her daughter's house

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

and only she and her father-in-law (petitioner) were at home and

during night, at about 10:30 P.M., her father-in-law (petitioner) after

consuming liquor, had knocked at her door and the moment she had

.

opened the door, he had pushed her on the bed and had violated her

person forcibly. When she disclosed the incident to her mother-in-law

and husband, they also snubbed her and pressurized her for

compromise and Panchayat Pradhan had also pressurized her for

compromise. On the basis this complaint, FIR in present case was

registered and petitioner was arrested on 7.8.2020 after recording

statement of complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur.

3. In sequel to order passed on previous date, respondent-

State has placed on record extract of Entry register of Serologic Test

Syphilis (ST) of Civil Hospital, Bilaspur, wherein names of persons,

who had been subjected to test for Syphilis, have been entered. Copy

of extract of register has also been supplied to petitioner along with

copy of challan. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on

record copy of challan and documents supplied to petitioner along with

that.

4. Referring copy of extract of register, referred supra,

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per complaint,

incident had taken place on 25.10.2019 and as a matter of fact no such

incident had happened and it has also come on record, as evident from

the documents supplied to the petitioner along with challan, that

complainant was suffering from Syphilis and as per opinion given by

Doctor, on the request of SHO, Women Police Station, Bilaspur,

Syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease and also spreads from direct

person to person contact with Syphilis infected person. After detection

of this disease, husband of complainant had asked her from whom she

had infected, whereupon she leveled allegation on her husband that he

.

was suffering from Syphilis, whereupon husband of complainant had

undergone the test and found negative. Thereafter, complainant

leveled allegation on her father-in-law, that she has suffered from this

disease on account of violation of her person by her father-in-law

(petitioner) and thereafter her father-in-law (petitioner) had also

undergone test on 13.1.2020 and was found negative, whereas

complainant was found positive on 13.11.2019 as well as on 7.1.2020.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is

wrong to suggest that on the basis of extract of register it transpired

that petitioner had undergone treatment of Syphilis, rather as a matter

of fact, he has undergone the test for verifying the fact as to whether

he was suffering from Syphilis. It is also submitted on behalf of

petitioner that neither husband of victim nor father-in-law (petitioner)

were or are suffering from Syphilis and, in case, they would have come

in contact of complainant, they would have also been suffering from

the same disease.

6. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that complainant,

infact, intends to divorce her husband, which had reflected during

conversation between the parties before the Panchayat, as has also

come in evidence during investigation in the statement of Sat Dev.

The circumstances in which petitioner, complainant and her husband

had undergone the test, have also come on record in the statement of

Sat Dev, Daulat Ram and Surinder Kumar. It is also contended on

behalf of petitioner that after verification of the facts before Panchyat

as well as villagers, complainant had apologized for leveling false

allegations against her father-in-law and thereafter she along with her

child had left the house of her in-laws and had gone to her parental

.

house. The said compromise had taken place on 15.3.2020 and

complaint on the basis of which FIR has been lodged was made to

police on 6.8.2020.

7. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that

petitioner is facing accusation for commission of a heinous crime and,

therefore, he is not entitled for bail and he may repeat same offence

again.

8. Considering the entire material on record, as referred by

learned counsel for the petitioner, which has been supplied to the

petitioner by the prosecution itself along with challan, I find that it is a fit

case for enlarging the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, petitioner is

ordered to be enlarged on bail, in present case, subject to furnishing

personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the like

amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, upon such further conditions

as may be deemed fit and proper by the trial Court, including the

conditions enumerated hereinafter, so as to ensure the presence of the

petitioner at the time of trial:-

(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner shall 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 Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) that the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial;

(iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected;

(v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any

.

manner;

(vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail;

(vii) that he shall keep on informing about the change in address, landline number and/or mobile number, if any, for his availability to Police and/or during trial;

(viii) he shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

9. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing

and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioner

as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in

the interest of justice and thereupon, it will also be open to the trial

Court to impose any other or further condition on the petitioner as it

may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

10. In case the petitioner violates any conditions imposed upon

him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality,

prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation

of bail, in accordance with law.

11. Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions

issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc.

Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.

12. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not

affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for

the disposal of the bail application.

13. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order

downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not

insist for certified copy of the order, however, he may verify the order

from the High Court website or otherwise.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

.

                                                     (Vivek Singh Thakur),
     st
    1 January, 2021                                        Judge.





          (Keshav)




                           r          to