Shahrukh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition, a prayer has been made for release of the petitioner on bail in case F.I.R. No.288/2019, dated 21.10.2019, registered against him at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to 'IPC' for short).

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present bail petition are as under:­

On 16.10.2019, prosecutrix filed a complaint before the Incharge, Police Station, Balh, District Mandi, H.P., alleging therein that on 08.10.2019, on the inducement of the petitioner to marry her, she had gone with him to Chandigarh and thereafter to Delhi by bus. From there, the petitioner took her to Mumbai, where they stayed for a night and thereafter, they returned to Delhi, where they solemnized marriage in the Court/Mazjid. In the meanwhile, petitioner established sexual relations with her. He did not disclose to the prosecutrix that he was already married and that his wife being delivered a child. Prosecutrix came to know of the said fact in Delhi after the marriage was solemnized and they were in the house of the relatives of the present petitioner. On the basis of the written complaint filed by the prosecutrix, initially a F.I.R. was registered on the same date at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P. Petitioner was arrested on 19.10.2019

Record demonstrates that thereafter, a fresh F.I.R. was registered at Police Station, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. on 21.10.2019, as investigation revealed that the place of occurrence of the alleged incident was in the jurisdiction of the Sundernagar Police Station. Petitioner is stated to be behind the bars since 17.10.2019.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he has been wrongly involved in the alleged offence by the police. He further argued that the prosecutrix even otherwise at the time when the alleged incident took place, was major and assuming without conceding that the version of the prosecutrix is correct, she had gone with the petitioner out of her own free will and volition and not under any coercion or duress as alleged. He further submits that it should not be taken that there is any admission on the part of the petitioner of the offences alleged against him. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2019. Petitioner has been residing in District Mandi, H.P. since the age of five years and his entire family resides at there. As no recovery etc. is to be effected from him, no purpose is going to be solved by keeping him in custody, because whether or not, petitioner is guilty, is a matter of trial and in case he is found guilty, law will take its own course. On these basis, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

Opposing the bail, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the offences which stand alleged against the petitioner, in the event of the petitioner being released on bail, there is each and every possibility that the petitioner may try to win over and influence the witnesses and he may also hamper the course of trial. He has further argued that as the petitioner is otherwise also a resident of Utter Pradesh, there is each and every possibility that he may jump the bail and will not be available to face the trial. He further submited that the release of the petitioner at this stage will have an adverse impact on the prosecutrix also and therefore also, the petition be.

Rebutting the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has instructions to state that the petitioner voluntarily undertakes to remain within the territorial limits of the State of Himachal Pradesh till the trial is over, nor will he try to disrupt the course of trial nor jump any of the conditions of the bail in the event of bail being granted to him.

Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General, in my considered view, as the petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2019 and no recovery etc. is now to be made from him, no purpose is going to be solved by retaining him in custody. It is not in dispute that at the time of the occurrence of the alleged offence, the prosecutrix was major. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner also happens to be a young boy of 22 years. On instructions, learned Additional Advocate General also informs the Court that the Challan has already been filed in the Court and the same is now listed for consideration on 24.07.2020. As far as the apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner being resident of Utter Pradesh may jump the bail, the same can be taken care of in view of the voluntarily statement which has been made by learned Senior Counsel at the bar, on instructions, on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Himachal Pradesh till the trial is over, which statement is taken on record. This Court has also been informed that the petitioner has no previous criminal history nor there is any other allegations against him for having committed offences like the one, qua which present F.I.R. stands registered. The Court has also been informed that till now there has not been any endeavour on the part of the members of the family of the petitioner either to win over any of the witnesses or influence them.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed, by ordering the release of the petitioner on bail in case F.I.R. No.288/2019, dated 21.10.2019, registered against him at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/­ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned

Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:­

i) Petitioner shall 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;

ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

iii) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

It is clarified that the findings which have been returned by this Court while deciding this petition are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and learned trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this petition during the trial of the case. It is further clarified that in case the petitioner does not complies with the conditions which have been imposed upon him while granting the present bail, the State shall be at liberty to approach this Court for the cancellation of the bail. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Copy dasti.