Decided On: 30.12.2022 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 11783 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

.

Cr. MP (M) No. 2119 of 2022

Decided on: 30.12.2022 ______________________________________________________________ Krishna Devi ....Petitioner

Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent _

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Addl. AG.

Sushil Kukreja, Judge

By way of instant petition, filed under Section

439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner is

seeking bail in case FIR No. 24/2022, dated 11.02.2022,

registered at Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P.,

under Sections 376, 323, 506 and 120­B of the Indian

Penal Code.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on

11.02.2022 the complainant, made a complaint to the

police, alleging therein that on 10.02.2022, at about 8:30

p.m., the petitioner alongwith her husband Surender alias

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

Sikandar came to the complainant for inviting her to a

.

birthday function in their house. The complainant, on

account of old acquaintance, went to the house of the

petitioner. On reaching the house of the petitioner,

husband of the petitioner (Surender) forcibly committed

rape upon the complainant inside the bathroom and the

petitioner had recorded video of the same from the window.

The petitioner also gave beatings to the complainant with

pipe and also threatened her by taking out Khukhari, due

to which the complainant sustained injuries. Consequently,

FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be registered against

the petitioner as well as her husband Surender. During

investigation, it was unearthed that both the petitioner and

her husband are habitual offenders and found indulged in

many cases. On 11.02.2022, both the petitioner and her

husband were arrested. Mobile phone, in which the video

of the complainant was recorded, was taken into

possession. The police had sent the CCTV footages of the

camera, installed in the house of the petitioner alongwith

her mobile phone, for examination, The statement of the

petitioner under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was

.

recorded and she got recovered the pipe, with which she

had given beatings to the petitioner.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been

falsely implicated in the present case, due to some enmity.

He also submitted that investigation is almost complete

and custody of the petitioner is not at all required and, as

such, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the

petitioner, who is a woman, behind the bars for an

unlimited period.

4. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate

General has contended that the petitioner does not deserve

to be released on bail as she has been found involved in a

serious offence, so, at this stage, in case she is enlarged on

bail, she may tamper with the prosecution evidence and

may also flee from justice. He further contended that the

petitioner is habitual offender and many cases have been

registered against her at different police stations.

5. I have given my considered thought to the rival

.

contentions raised and also gone through the police file as

well as the status report filed by the prosecution and I am

of the firm opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be

released on bail. A perusal of the record reveals that the

only allegation against the petitioner is that she had

recorded the video from the window, when her husband had

allegedly committed rape on the complainant in the

bathroom. Though, the police had sent the CCTV footages of

the camera, installed in the house of the petitioner

alongwith her mobile phone, for examination, however, as

per RFSL report, the video related to the case could not be

found present in the data extracted via file system

extraction. The petitioner was arrested on 11.02.2022 and

since then she is behind the bars. There is no evidence on

record to suggest that the she will tamper with the

prosecution evidence or will flee from justice, if released on

bail. Moreover, the investigation is almost complete and

trial may take sufficiently long time to conclude. Therefore,

no fruitful purpose will be served if the petitioner, who is a

woman, is kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. The

.

contention of learned Additional Advocate General that

many cases have been registered against the petitioner is no

ground to deny bail to the petitioner in the present case, as

those cases will be decided by the concerned Courts on

their own merits. Considering the overall facts and

circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present

is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner

on bail is required to be exercised in her favour.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered

that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in

case FIR No. 24/2022, dated 11.02.2022, registered at

Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections

376, 323, 506 and 120­B of the Indian Penal Code, shall be

forthwith released on bail, in this case, subject to her

furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 25,000/­

(Rupees twenty five thousand), with one surety in the like

amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. This bail

order is subject, however, to the following conditions:­

(i) that the petitioner will appear before the Court and the Investigating Officer whenever required ;

(ii) that she 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 any facts to the Court or the police;

(iii) that she will not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor he will try to win over the Prosecution witnesses or

terrorise them in any manner;

(iv) that she will not deliberately and intentionally act in a manner which may tend to delay the investigation or the trial of the case.

6.

(v) the Court.

r to that she will not leave India without prior permission of

Needless to say that the Investigating agency

shall be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of the

bail, if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the

petitioner.

7. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given

in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on

the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be

influenced by any observations made therein.

                                                        ( Sushil Kukreja )
         December 30, 2022                                      Judge
           (raman)