Himachal Pradesh High Court______________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 19 May, 2020Author:Ajay Mohan GoelBench:Ajay Mohan Goel1\n\n\n\n                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA\n\n                                                  Cr. MP(M) No.:                    576 of 2020\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                            .\n\n                              Date of Decision:     19.05.2020\n______________________________________________________________________\nBaldev Singh                                          ....Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                  Vs.\n\nState of Himachal Pradesh                                                               .....Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n\nCoram:\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge\nWhether approved for reporting?1 No\n\nFor the petitioner:                               Mr. Ritesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, through\n\n                                                  Video Conferencing.\n\nFor the respondents:                              M/s Sumesh Raj, Dinesh Thakur and\n                                                  Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate\n\n\n                                                  Generals, with Ms. Divya Sood, Deputy\n                                                  Advocate General through Video\n                                                  Conferencing.\n\n\n\n\nAjay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral):By way of this petition filed under Section 439 of the\n\nCode of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail in\n\n\n\n\n\nFIR No. 14/2018, dated 17.02.2018, registered under Sections 363,366,\n\n376 & 120­B of the Indian Penal Code & Section 4 of the POCSO Act at\n\nPolice Station Gohar, District Mandi, H.P.2.                            The case of the prosecution is that above FIR stands\n\nregistered on 17.02.2018 at the behest of father of the victim alleging\n\n\n1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2020 20:23:10 :::HCHP2therein that the victim was taken away from the lawful custody of the\n\nfather of the victim by the present petitioner and thereafter her modesty\n\n\n\n\n                                                                .has been outraged by the petitioner on the pretext of marriage.3.                Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the\n\n\n\n\n\npetitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and he is not guilty of\n\nthe offences as have been alleged against him. He further states that out\n\nof the five accused who have been named in the FIR, four are already out\n\n\n\n\n\non bail. He further argued that the challan in the matter stands filed by\n\nthe police, the petitioner is in custody since 24.09.2019 and no fruitful\n\npurpose will be served by keeping him in judicial custody, as no recovery\n\netc. is to be effected from him. On this count, he submits that the petition\n\nbe allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.4.                At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states\n\nthat though it is averred in the petition that the petitioner has not filed\n\n\n\n\nany other petition for grant of bail except the present petition before this\n\n\n\n\n\nCourt, but earlier the petitioner had approached the Court of competent\n\n\n\n\n\njurisdiction for grant of bail, which petition stood rejected and\n\ninadvertently, this fact could not be mentioned in the petition. He states\n\nthat this is a bonafide mistake which has been so committed and the\n\nintention was not to mislead the Court. The submission so made by\n\nlearned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.5.                Opposing the bail petition, learned Additional Advocate\n\nGeneral has argued that as the offences alleged against the petitioner are::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2020 20:23:10 :::HCHP3grave as he has been booked inter alia under thePOCSO Act, therefore, it\n\nwill be deterrent to the trial in case the petitioner is ordered to be\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 .released on bail. He further argued that the age of victim is stated to be\n\n17 years 1 month and 2 days and as it is clearly borne out from the\n\n\n\n\n\nrecord that the victim was taken away from the lawful custody of her\n\nguardian and has been subjected to sexual molestation, therefore, in\n\nthese circumstances, the petitioner does not deserves to be released on\n\n\n\n\n\nbail. He has also argued that even after lodging of the FIR, the petitioner\n\nwas evading arrest. He was arrested after a long time and there is every\n\npossibility that in the event of his being released on bail, he shall evade\n\nthe trial and also try to win over the witnesses.6.                   I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have\n\n\n\nalso gone through the status report as well as other documents appended\n\nwith the petition.7.                   The FIR which stands registered against the petitioner\n\n\n\n\n\nis dated 17.02.2018. It is borne out from the record that the petitioner\n\n\n\n\n\nwas arrested on 23.09.2019, i.e., after a lapse of more than one year as\n\nfrom the date of lodging of the FIR. However, as it is the own case of the\n\nprosecution that the petitioner was arrested from Mandi itself on the\n\nbasis of an information which was so received from an informer, this\n\nCourt finds it difficult to believe the story of the prosecution that the\n\npetitioner was evading arrest, as it it is not the case of the State that the::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2020 20:23:10 :::HCHP4petitioner was arrested either outside the State of Himachal Pradesh or\n\noutside the District in which the FIR was registered..8.                Be that as it may, it is a matter of record that as from\n\n24.09.2019, the petitioner is in custody and as of now, he is in judicial\n\n\n\n\n\ncustody. Challan already stands filed and no recovery etc. is to be effected\n\nfrom the petitioner. Age of the victim is stated to be more than 17 years\n\nand as per RFSL report, there was nothing suggestive of recent sexual\n\n\n\n\n\nintercourse, which is borne out from the status report itself. In this\n\nbackground, in my considered view, no fruitful purpose will be served by\n\nretaining the petitioner in custody. Whether or not the petitioner is guilty\n\nof the offences alleged against him, is a matter of trial and in case he is\n\nfound guilty of the offences alleged against him, then, but obvious, the\n\n\n\nconsequences will ensue, but on that count, it may not be prudent to\n\ndeny bail to the petitioner at this stage, taking into consideration the\n\n\n\n\ntotality of the factual matrix involved in the case. As far as the\n\n\n\n\n\napprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General is\n\n\n\n\n\nconcerned, the same can be taken care of by imposing stringent\n\nconditions upon the petitioner. One more fact which is weighing with this\n\nCourt while allowing the present petition is that out of five accused, four\n\nalready stands enlarged on bail, some of whom were granted anticipatory\n\nbail itself.9.                Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner\n\nis ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 14/2018, dated 17.02.2018,::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2020 20:23:10 :::HCHP5registered under Sections 363,366, 376 & 120­B of theIndian Penal Code&Section 4of the POCSO Act at Police Station Gohar, District Mandi,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       .H.P., subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/­ with\n\none surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial\n\n\n\n\n\nMagistrate, Mandi, H.P. The petitioner shall also abide by the following\n\nconditions:"(a)          He shall attend the Trial Court on\n\n\n\n\n\n                   each and every date of hearing and if prevented\n                   by any reason to do so, seek exemption from\n                   appearance by filing appropriate application;(b)           He     shall    not    tamper          with   the\n\n                   prosecution        evidence         nor        hamper       the\n                   investigation   of    the     case        in   any    manner\n\n\n                   whatsoever;\n                   (c)           He shall not make any inducement,threat or promise to any person acquainted with\n\n\n\n\n                   the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her\n\n\n\n\n\n                   from disclosing such facts to the Court or the\n                   Police Officer; and(d)           He shall not leave the territory of\n                   India without prior permission of the Court."10.               It is clarified that the findings which have been\n\nreturned by this Court while deciding this petition are only for the\n\npurpose of adjudication of the present bail application and learned Trial\n\nCourt shall not be influenced by any of the findings so returned by this\n\nCourt in the adjudication of this petition during trial of the case. It is::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2020 20:23:10 :::HCHP6further clarified that in case the petitioner does not comply with the\n\nconditions which been imposed upon him while granting the present bail,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                .the State shall be at liberty to approach this Court for the cancellation of\n\nbail. The petition stands disposed in above terms.(Ajay Mohan Goel)\n                                                        Judge\nMay 19, 2020\n    (bhupender)\n\n\n\n\n                      r           to::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2020 20:23:10 :::HCHP