w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Manoj Kumar v/s State of Himachal Pradesh


Company & Directors' Information:- MANOJ PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1980PTC010292

    Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 680 of 2020

    Decided On, 01 July 2020

    At, High Court of Himachal Pradesh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

    For the Appearing Parties: Ritesh Bhardwaj, S.C. Sharma, P.K. Bhatti, Kamal Kishore, Advocates.



Judgment Text


1. The matter is taken up through video conference.

2. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 82 of 2019, dated 19.09.2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2), 376(3) IPC Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1) r & s of SC&ST Act, registered in Police Station Janjehli, District Mandi, H.P.

3. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of District Mandi, H.P. and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.

4. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 19.09.2019 the prosecutrix (name withheld) made a statement before the police wherein she stated that in 2013 she left the school and her father died. During the year 2014 she received a telephonic call on her mobile and the caller disclosed himself as Manoj Kumar (petitioner herein). The petitioner told the petitioner that he is coming to his home and after 2-3 days he came to her house. He asked the mother of the prosecutrix that he could not find any place to stay, so he stayed there as a guest. The petitioner told the mother of the prosecutrix that he wants to marry the prosecutrix. During mid night, when the prosecutrix went outside to answer the call of nature, the petitioner caught hold of her and gagged her mouth. He forcible took her inside the room and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. When the prosecutrix started crying, her mother woke up and questioned the petitioner, but he told that he wants to marry the prosecutrix. On the subsequent morning, when the mother of the prosecutrix went to forest for collecting fuel wood, petitioner took the prosecutrix towards Odhidhar and made her to board a vehicle wherein the driver was waiting. Thereafter, he took the prosecutrix to her home and the driver went to his home. When the prosecutrix tried to divulge the incident to her mother, the petitioner snatched her mobile phone and broke it. As per the prosecutrix, she had disclosed to the petitioner that she belongs to scheduled caste. The petitioner belongs to general caste and initially he kept the prosecutrix nicely, but afterwards he started torturing her on the basis of her caste. The prosecutrix conceived a child and gave birth to a handicapped baby boy in Hamirpur Hospital. The petitioner did not resist from torturing her, so ultimately the prosecutrix was forced to come to her mother's house. Her mother has remarried and on 18.09.2019 the child fell ill and when the prosecutrix contacted the petitioner for treatment of the child, he blatantly refused. The prosecutrix got the child admitted in Janjheli Hospital for treatment, but the child succumbed. The petitioner sought that action be taken against the petitioner. On the basis of the statement, so made by the prosecutrix, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, police procured the records qua the death of the infant from the hospital. The prosecutrix was medically examined. On 20.09.2019 the petitioner was arrested and medically examined. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Police prepared the spot map and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. Record qua the date of birth of the prosecutrix was also procured by the police. Police also obtained the caste certificates of the prosecutrix and the petitioner. During the course of investigation it was unearthed that during the year 2014 the petitioner took the prosecutrix, who was minor, and kept her. The petitioner cohabited with the prosecutrix and a child was born, who at the age of three years died. It has also come in the investigation that the petitioner discriminated and tortured the prosecutrix on the basis of her caste. As per the DNA report, the petitioner is biological father and prosecutrix is biological mother of the deceased child. After completion of investigation, on 19.11.2019 challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court and now the case is listed for consideration on charge on 15.06.2020. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner committed a serious offence and there is every possibility that in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

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

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is resident of District Mandi, H.P. and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when investigation is complete, challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court and the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police. So, the bail application may be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious offence and in case, at this stage, he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed.

7. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when investigation is complete and challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court and also in the wake of the fact that the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

8. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner is resident of District Mandi, H.P. and neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, considering the fact that the investigation is complete and challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, so this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police in case FIR No. 82 of 2019, dated 19.09.2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2), 376(3) IPC Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1) r & s of SC&ST Act, registered in Police Station Janjehli District Mandi, H.P., shall be released on bail fort

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

hwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required. (ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioner will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court. 9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.
O R