Anju Chauhan vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13402 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                     CrMPs(M) No. 2281 to 2283 of 2023




                                                                              .
                                            Decided on           :     13.09.2023





    CrMP (M) No. 2281 of 2023
    Anju Chauhan                                                         ...Applicant





                                              Versus

    State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
    ........................................................................................




    CrMP (M) No. 2282 of 2023
    Pankaj Chauhan        r                                              ...Applicant

                                              Versus

    State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
    ........................................................................................
    CrMP (M) No. 2283 of 2023


    Kamala Devi                                                          ...Applicant

                                              Versus




    State of Himachal Pradesh                                            ...Respondent





    Coram
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting?1


    For the applicant(s)                :       Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate.

    For the respondent(s) :                      Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional
                                                 Advocate General, with Ms.
                                                 Leena      Guleria,     Deputy
                                                 Advocate General, assisted by
                                                 ASI Sukh Dev, Police Station
                                                 Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P.

    1
        Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.




                                                             ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:34:03 :::CIS
                                    2

    Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral)

The above-titled bail applications are being

.

disposed of by the common order, as, all the three bail

applications have been preferred, under Section 439 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as

'CrPC), by surrendering themselves to the custody of the

Court, in the same FIR, i.e. FIR No. 64 of 2023, dated 22nd

August, 2023, registered with Police Station Kotkhai,

District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 498A, 506, 34 of the

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and

Section 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter

referred to as 'SC&ST Act').

2. According to the applicants, they are innocent

persons and have nothing to do with the allegations, which

have been levelled against them, in the FIR.

3. It is the case of the applicants that they never

met complainant-Reena nor had any telephonic

conversation with her and despite this fact, they have

wrongly been impleaded, in the case.

4. According to the applicants, they are from a

respectable family, having deep roots in the society.

.

5. Apart from this, the learned counsel appearing

for the applicants, has given certain undertakings, on

behalf of the applicants, for which, the applicants are

ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail.

6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has

been made to allow the bail applications.

7. Since, the applicants have moved the above-

titled bail applications, by surrendering themselves to the

custody of the Court, on 6th September, 2023, the State

was directed to file the status report.

8. When put to notice, the police has filed the

status report, disclosing therein, that complainant-Reena

has made a statement, under Section 154 CrPC, disclosing

therein, that she had solemnized marriage on 19 th October,

2020, with one Om Prakash @ Rinku Rajput, as per the

Hindu rites and rituals. Her husband is a folk singer.

About 1600 persons had attended their marriage. Prior to

their marriage, they were residing together in live-in

relationship for about seven years. After marriage, she has

lived in her matrimonial home for one month. Thereafter,

they lived in a rented accommodation at Devnagar, Shimla.

.

8.1. As per the complainant, after about one month,

the complainant had seen an obscene video clip of her

husband with some other woman, in his mobile phone.

The face of the said woman was not visible in the video

clip, however, the said video clip was recorded at their

residential accommodation at Devnagar. Since, the woman

in the video clip was in objectionable condition, disputes

started in their matrimonial life. Thereafter, her husband

started ignoring her and made caste based aspersions,

upon which, the complainant made a complaint with Police

Station Chopal, in the year 2020, which was, later on,

settled mutually.

8.2. According to the complainant, even thereafter,

her husband did not stop talking to various other girls.

Her husband used to come to their house at Devnagar and

threaten her, which matter has also been reported at

Women Police Station, BCS, as well as, Police Station East,

Shimla. She has also lodged FIR against her husband and

his family members, at Police Station Chopal, District

Shimla, which is pending adjudication.

.

8.3. It has been mentioned in the complaint that,

thereafter, the complainant inquired about her husband

and came to know that he was residing with one Anju

Chauhan (applicant in CrMP (M) No. 2281 of 2023) at

Sharda Sharma's house, Kangnadhar, BCS, Shimla, upon

which, she called said Anju Chauhan's brother, Kaku

(applicant in CrMP (M) No. 2282 of 2023) and mother,

Kaushalya @ Kamla Devi (applicant in CrMP (M) No. 2283

of 2023) to apprise them about the said fact and prayed

them not to let their sister/daughter ruin her matrimonial

life, upon which, said Kaku (applicant in CrMP (M) No.

2282 of 2023) had threatened her with caste based

aspersions.

8.4. As per the complainant, when, she called Anju

Chauhan (applicant in CrMP (M) No. 2281 of 2023), she

disclosed that the husband of the complainant was not

knowing the fact that she belongs to Koli caste.

8.5. According to the complainant, Anju Chauhan

(applicant in CrMP (M) No. 2281 of 2023) is a divorcee and

living with the husband of the complainant at Panchkula,

in a rented accommodation. The husband of the

.

complainant is stated to be not paying expenses to her,

due to which, she is suffering mental harassment. She is

also stated to be getting life threats from her husband and

Anju Chauhan's families.

9. On the basis of the above facts, the police

registered the FIR and the criminal machinery swung into

motion. Police has collected the documents pertaining to

the litigation pending between the complainant and her in-

laws. In addition to this, correspondence has also been

made with Tehsildar Chopal and Tehsildar Kotkhai to

obtain the caste certificates of the parties to the present

litigation.

10. After perusing the said status report, the

applicants were ordered to be released on interim bail,

subject to their furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of

₹ 50,000/- each, with one surety each of the like amount,

to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this

Court, with a direction to join the investigation and the

matter has been adjourned for today.

11. Today, the police has filed the supplementary

status report, disclosing therein, that as per the statement

.

of the complainant, recorded under Section 161 CrPC, it

has been transpired that the complainant was abused with

caste aspersions by the applicants.

12. As per the said status report, the applicants

have joined the investigation on 10 th September, 2023. The

interrogation has been carried out and the requisite

correspondence has been made with the Tehsildar

(Revenue), Kotkhai, for obtaining the caste certificates of

the accused persons.

13. The status report is totally silent about the fact

as to whether the custodial interrogation of the applicants

is required by the police.

14. The role, allegedly, played by the applicants, in

the commission of the alleged offences, will be proved

during the trial. Moreover, the bail applications cannot be

rejected as a matter of punishment, as pre-trial

punishment is prohibited under the law.

15. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the police

that the applicants have misused the interim concession of

bail.

16. When the applicants are co-operating in the

.

investigation of the case, then, declining the relief, under

Section 439 CrPC, to them, would amount to punishing

them prior to the trial. Accused are presumed to be

innocent till the conclusion of the trial and no useful

purpose would be served by sending them to the judicial

custody, by dismissing the bail applications.

17. When, the police is not interested to have the

custodial interrogation of the applicants, then, the interim

order, dated 6th September, 2023, is liable to be confirmed.

Moreover, the applicants are permanent residents of

District Shimla, as such, it cannot be apprehended that

they may not be available for the trial, in case, interim

order is made absolute.

18. Considering the peculiar facts of the case that

the husband and wife are litigating with each other, this

Court is of the view that the bail applications deserves to

be allowed.

19. Consequently, the bail applications are allowed

and interim order, dated 6th September, 2023, is made

absolute. Therefore, it is ordered that the applicants be

released on bail, in case FIR No. 64 of 2023, dated 22nd

.

August, 2023, registered with Police Station Kotkhai,

District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 498A, 506, 34 IPC

and Section 3 (1) (s) of the SC&ST Act. The bail is granted,

subject to the following conditions:

a) That the applicants will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law;

b) That the applicants will not leave India, without

prior permission of the Court;

c) That the applicants 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 the Court; and

d) That the applicants shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and

if prevented by any reason to do so seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

20. Any of the observations, made hereinabove,

shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the

merits of the case, as these observations, are confined,

only, to the disposal of the present bail applications.

21. The applicants are directed to move regular

bail applications, when charge sheet will be filed in the

Competent Court of Law.

22. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at

.

liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of

the bail conditions, is found to be violated by the

applicants.

( Virender Singh ) Judge September 13, 2023 ( rajni )