Majoor vs State of H.P.

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—The petitioner has preferred this petition u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for directions to be released on bail. He is accused in offences under Sections 363, 366A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he has not disclosed the whereabouts of his son as also the prosecutrix who is a minor and purportedly kidnapped by his son. The First Information Report was lodged on 16th April, 2010 in Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra. Petitioner is now in judicial custody. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are that he had participated in a conspiracy with his son Samuel to kidnap the minor prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship of her parents. Since Samuel and the prosecutrix cannot be traced, it will not be in the interest of justice to release the petitioner as he knows about the whereabouts of the prosecutrix as alleged by the police. The court concludes:

I am of the view that interest of the State and General public will be adversely effected if the applicant is released on bail. I am also of the view that if the applicant is released on bail the investigation and trial of the case will also be adversely effected.

This is a generalization made by the learned Court which I would find difficult to accept to deny bail. True that one of the accused is the son of the petitioner who is now in jail and he has now touching the age of 60 years. It is not clear as to how he is continued detention in judicial custody. A period of more than four months has elapsed and the police is still clueless about the prosecutrix as also the purported abductor. If it was the petitioner who was responsible for all this, his sustained custodial interrogation should have been sufficient to elicit the information sought. What effort has been made by the prosecution is unclear. It seems to be sitting on its hands waiting for the petitioner to voluntarily disclose facts convenient to the prosecution. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not conform to the principles for release on bail.

In these circumstances, this application is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

(a) The petitioner shall join the investigation on all dates as directed by the Investigating Officer.

(b) He shall attend the trial on each and every date of hearing unless exempted by the learned trial Court in accordance with law.

(c) The petitioner shall not interfere or tamper with the prosecution evidence or in any manner try to overawe or influence the prosecution witnesses;

(d) The petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation;

(e) He shall not abscond from the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala.

(f) The petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala.

(g) The petitioner shall report to Police Station, Nurpur once every fortnight starting from 20th September, 2010. His attendance shall be marked by the police on every visit.

(h) It will be open to the learned trial court to impose any other or further condition it may deem necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. For this purpose, It will be open to the prosecution also to move the learned trial court.

(i) It is clarified that in the event of violation of any of the conditions imposed, the petitioner shall be taken into custody forthwith without reference to this Court.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.