Veena vs State of Himachal Pradesh

The present bail application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing her on bail, in the event of her arrest, in case FIR No. 223 of2013, dated 07.09.2013, under Sections 366A, 376 of IPC, Section 3(1)(XII) of SC & ST Act and Sections 4 and 17 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.

As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, so she may be released on bail.

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 07.09.2013 the prosecutrix (name withheld) moved a complaint to the police alleging therein that accused Sonu asked her for having friendship and on 01.09.2013 he asked her to come to Nabahi bazaar, as he had got phone and clothes for the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix alongwith her younger sister came to Nabahi bazaar and accused Sonu took them in a vehicle, in which his jija and sister (co-accused) were also traveling. The accused persons, at Naghla nallah, gave twenty rupees and phone of the prosecutrix to her younger sister and told her to go home. Thereafter the petitioner and co-accused took the prosecutrix to a room at Chandigarh, where accused Sonu committed sexual intercourse with her. On 05.09.2013, the petitioner and coaccused made the prosecutrix to board a bus alongwith accused Sonu and she was sent back to her home. As per the prosecutrix, the petitioner and co-accused allured her to come with them and accused Sonu committed sexual intercourse with her against her will. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the prosecutrix, police machinery was set into motion and a case came to be registered against the petitioner and co-accused. The prosecutrix was medically examined and it was opined by the doctor did not rule out possibility of sexual intercourse. The statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The spot map was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Police also went to the room at Chandigarh where accused Sonu sexually assaulted the prosecutrix and spot map whereof was also prepared. Police effected different recoveries and the same were sent for forensic analysis. During the course of investigation the petitioner absconded and she was declared as proclaimed offender. Police presented the challan in the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court acquitted the co-accused. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be rejected.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner is a proclaimed offender and the matter is pending before the learned Trial Court against her. He has further argued that on 06.03.2015 challan against the petitioner was presented under Section 299 Cr.P.C. and supplementary challan was presented on 05.05.2015. The petitioner is a proclaimed offender and she was accomplice in the present case. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

At this moment, taking into consideration the overall facts, which have come in the present case, the fact that the petitioner wants appear in the learned Trial Court, the other two co-accused involved in the present case have already been acquitted and the petitioner is a lady, not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, and other material came on record, this Court orders that interim order, dated 27.11.2017, issued in her favour will continue in force till 18.12.2017, on the same terms and conditions, and on or before this date she may move appropriate application before the learned Trail Court, as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.