High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 11 SHI CK 0246

Purshottam vs State of H.P.

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 10 November 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Surjit Singh, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal M.P.M. No. 1120 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 340 words

Surjit Singh, J.—Heard and gone through the record.

2.

Present applicant has been booked and arrested for offences, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly abducting one Chanchlo and conspiring the kidnapping of one Babli by his accomplice Surinder alias Chhotu.

3.

As per FIR that was lodged with the police by the father of Babli, allegedly kidnapped and raped by Surinder alias Chhotu, accomplice of the present applicant, Babli aged a little more than 16 years, accompanied by her cousin Chanchlo, aged about 21 years, had gone to attend a marriage in the area of Kehar in Chamba District, from where they were kidnapped/abducted by the present applicant and his brother Surinder alias Chhotu, with the connivance of their sister Usha and their father''s brother Kishan. The alleged kidnapping took place on 31st May, 2010. The two girls were recovered on 4th July, 2010 from a place in Tehsil Pathankot of Gurdaspur District of Punjab. Both the girls made statements, u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that they had been kidnapped/abducted and subjected to sexual intercourse, without their consent and against their will.

4.

Chanchlo, allegedly abducted by the present applicant, was 21 years of age. She does not say that any force was used to compel her to accompany the applicant or that any deceitful means were adopted to make her to accompany him. Also, the two had exchanged affidavits, to the effect that they had married each other. These affidavits were, of course, exchanged only after the alleged kidnapping/abduction.

5.

Looking to the facts and the circumstances of the case, I feel that this is a fit case where Court''s discretion in the matter of grant of bail be exercised in favour of the applicant. Hence, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released, on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba. Application stands disposed of.