Deepak Singh vs State of H.P.

Surinder Singh, J

The Petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 212 of 2007, registered on 1st October, 2007, in Police Station, Boileauganj, under Sections 376(C), 420, 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, at the instance of Smt. Rita Kashyap. His bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence this application u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Heard and gone through the report.

Prosecution alleged that the complainant was a divorcee and she intended to solemnize her marriage. Thus she gave her particulars in the matrimonial column of the news paper. Pursuant to that the Petitioner reached. During the preliminary meeting, the Petitioner pretended that he was unmarried. Ultimately the proposal of marriage was finalized and they solemnized marriage on 21st April, 2007 in ''Ram Mandir'' Shimla. He also exchanged the affidavit to the effect that he was unmarried. Thereafter the Petitioner is alleged to have taken her to his native place at Khurja and they also resided for sometime at Shimla. In the month of July, 2007 one lady contacted the complainant and told to her that she was the legally married wife of Petitioner and from this wedlock she had given the birth of a child. Thereafter she filed the complaint with the Women Cell, Shimla with a copy to the Superintendent of Police, Shimla on 24th July, 2007. On the basis of enquiry, the FIR was lodged. The Petitioner was not traceable, ultimately the proclamation was issued for his presence. On 26th February, 2010 he surrendered before the learned Sessions Judge. His bail was rejected and since then he is in judicial custody.

The Challan has been presented in the Court and is fixed before the Committal Court on 31st March, 2010.

Prima facie it is not a case falling under Sections 376(C) of the Indian Penal Code and 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.

The learned Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that in case the Petitioner is enlarged on bail, he will not face the trial.

Contra, Shri G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Shri Romesh Verma, submitted that the Petitioner is a permanent resident of Khurja District Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh and he is also a businessman. The Petitioner shall abide by all the reasonable conditions imposed by this Court.

Considering the above arguments, in my opinion the Petitioner can be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, out of which one shall be the local surety, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla and this bail shall be subject to the following conditions that the petitioner:

i) shall present in the Court on 31st March, 2010 and thereafter regularly whenever the case is fixed either in the Committal Court or in the Court of Sessions;

ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner, and

iii) shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer.

Needless to say that in case the Petitioner makes any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the liberty of his bail shall be cancelled.

Any expression or observations made heretofore, shall not affect the merits of the case, as it is strictly for the purpose of deciding this petition.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla for information and necessary action at his end.

In case the parties apply for urgent copies, it shall be supplied to them immediately as per rules.

The petition stands disposed of.