CRMPM/1894/2022 on 30 December 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr.M.P(M) No.1894 of 2022

Date of Decision: December 30, 2022

Meena Ram

…Petitioner.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh

..Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Petitioner: Mr.Lovneesh Singh Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Hemant Vaid, Additional Advocate General.

Mr.Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate, alongwith Ms.Dhanwanti, Advocate, for the complainant.

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

By way of this petition, petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’), in case FIR No.61 of 2022, dated 25.07.2022, registered in Police Station Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’).

2. Status report stands filed and record was also made available.

3. As per prosecution case, on 25.07.2022 victim alongwith her father, Aunt (Tai) and Mami and other three persons, approached Police Station Kasauli with an application, stating therein that she was married to Pushpender Kumar, son of petitioner Meena Ram in February 2022 and prior to marriage

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

she was having a Facebook friend Sandeep and they were in touch with each other on mobile phone. On 07.07.2022, she, after informing her parents-in-law and husband, had gone to Solan for shopping and, on that day, she had also contacted Sandeep, but Sandeep did not meet her on that day and she came back from Solan and went to the place of job of her husband, i.e. Hotel Whispering, but her husband had already left for home, therefore, she sent a message on his mobile. Thereafter, her husband and parents-in-law came with a vehicle at 8.15 p.m. and took her to her maternal home and complained to her parents that she ran away from home without seeking permission and on 08.07.2022, after having deliberation in her parental house, her in-laws took her to her in-laws’ place.

4. On 10.07.2022, husband of the complainant went on duty and her mother-in-law had gone to her maternal house and she and her father-in-law (petitioner) were only present at home. House was situated away from Village in a solitary place. At about 2.00 p.m., she served food to her father-in-law and also had food. Thereafter, in the lower storey, her father-in-law was taking rest on the bed in the inner room, whereas she was on cot in outer room. She had taken quilt, but she was waking. At about 2.30 p.m., her father-in-law (petitioner) came out of inner room and bolted the door of the room in which complainant was sleeping and put of the quilt suddenly, which was objected by the victim. Whereupon, petitioner forcibly pulled her by catching her hand and dragged her to his room. She raised hue and cry and resisted to the act of the petitioner, but he asked her to do the same act with him, which was done by her on 07.07.2022 with her friend and he threw her on the bed and after removing her Salwar forcibly ravished her.

5. It has further been stated that after the incident, she was in a shock and her brain was not working. In case of disclosure of the incident to anyone, petitioner had also threatened her to defame her in the Village and amongst relatives. On that day, her mother-in-law came back but her husband came back in the morning of 12.07.2022, but due to shame she could not tell anything to him. After the incident, complainant suffered continuous headache and her father-in-law (petitioner) was also appearing to be frightened. On 13.07.2022, complainant overheard talk of her parents-in-law, who were saying that complainant was suffering from mental ailment and, thereafter, her parents-in-law and husband took her to Hospital at Kunihar, wherefrom, after First Aid she was asked to go home, but her in-laws were adamant to take her for checkup by Dr.Virender Mohan, Dharampur by declaring that complainant was mentally ill. After medical examination by Dr.Virender Mohan, she was left by her in-laws at her maternal house.

6. It has further been stated that as the complainant was under duress and fear of facing defamation, she could not disclose about the incident to anyone. She did not take medicine prescribed by Dr.Virender Mohan. She complained that at one hand her father-in-law forcibly ravished her and on the other hand, efforts were being made to declare her mad. On 22.07.2022, she came out of the shock and disclosed the incident to her Aunts (Tai) Nirmala, Gumiti and Suma. Whereupon, her parents called her in-laws on 23.07.2022, but they did not come and, therefore, she, alongwith relatives of maternal side, visited Police Station Kunihar on 25.07.2022 for lodging report, wherefrom, they were directed to lodge report in Police Station Kasauli. In the aforesaid circumstances, complainant requested the police to lodge the complaint.

7. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR was registered and investigation was carried on.

During investigation, double bed sheet identified as sheet of the bed on the day of incident, clothes worn by complainant and petitioner were taken into possession and sent for chemical analysis alongwith samples obtained during medical examination of the victim.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copies of Daily Diary Reports (DDRs) and statement of complainant recorded on 08.07.2022 in presence of police as well as copy of FIR No.35 of 2022, dated 24.07.2022 registered in Police Station Kunihar at 10.10 p.m. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that family of in-laws of the complainant was called by maternal side of the complainant on 24.07.2022 and when they reached there at 5.30 p.m. and parents of husband were talking with parents of the complainant and other members and Pradhan were having dialogue, father of the complainant started beating petitioner Meena Ram and after bolting the door beat Pushpender Kumar (husband) and his parents, causing injury to Meena Ram and Pushpender. Whereafter, Pushpender (husband of complainant) approached the police and lodged FIR No.35 of 2022, dated 24.07.2022 and present FIR has been lodged thereafter, on next day, in order to counter the FIR lodged by husband of the complainant, by concocting false story that victim had disclosed about the alleged incident to her Aunts on 22.07.2022 whereupon they summoned her in-laws but they did not come to her maternal house despite calling for discussions.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record GD No.16, dated 07.07.2022 recorded at 7.30 p.m., wherein Reeta Devi, mother-in-law of complainant, had lodged report that complainant-victim, who had gone Solan on that day, had not come back, with request to the police to search her. Another copy of GD No.17, dated 07.07.2022 recorded at 7.40 p.m. has been placed on record, wherein it has been recorded that Reeta Devi through mobile informed the police that message of complainant-victim had been received on the mobile of her son (husband of complainant) informing that complainant- victim was at Dharampur in the bus. Copy of another GD No.21, dated 07.07.2022 recorded at 11.00 p.m., has been placed on record, wherein it was informed that complainant had come back to home and she was fit, fine and safe.

10. Copy of DDR GD No.12, dated 08.07.2022 recorded at 5.30 p.m. has been placed on record, wherein it has been reported that complainant, her husband Pushpender, Meena Ram (father-in-law), Reeta Devi (mother-in-law) as well as Ram Kishan, Jai Kishan Uncle and Nirmala Aunt came to the Police Post Garkhal and Pushpender Kumar disclosed that his wife (complainant) had left house yesterday without informing and on return journey she reached Dharampur at 8.00 p.m. and in this regard she had been brought to Police Chowki Garkhal for inquiry in presence of her in laws and maternal parents. Further that, on inquiry, complainant disclosed that on 07.07.2022 she left for Solan from her in laws’ house without informing and, at that time, no one was at home as her husband was serving in a Hotel at Dharampur and her father-in-law and mother-in-law were serving in Jubber Factory in Kumarhatti. She admitted her mistake about leaving house without informing. She had further stated that, she was alone at Solan Bus-Stand and no one had done any wrong to her and she undertook not to repeat such incident and to leave house without informing them, in future. As per report, counselling of both parties was alone and thereafter in-laws of complainant took the complainant with them and complainant after admitting her mistake expressed that she was going to her in laws with her volition and will.

11. Complainant has also engaged a counsel for defending her, who has referred contents of FIR for justifying detention of the petitioner with further submission that immediately after disclosure of the commission of offence, maternal family of the complainant-victim approached the police after making an effort to discuss the matter with in laws of the complainant, but they did not turn up. Resultantly, FIR was lodged and, therefore, there is no delay as alleged by the petitioner in lodging the FIR.

12. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that petitioner has committed wrong having serious impact on the society, particularly keeping in view nature of the relation between victim and the accused, who like a father had to protect the petitioner, but ravished her and, therefore, prayer for rejecting the bail application has been made.

13. At the time of lodging report victim had stated in her complaint that clothes which were worn by her on 10.07.2022 at the time of incident, are lying in her in laws’ house, which were taken into possession after registration of FIR and sent for chemical analysis. As per report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), the Report of the Biology and Serology Division, State Forensic Science Laboratory was negative for presence of semen on all the exhibits of the victim and, thus, DNA profiling was not undertaken.

14. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any condition to assure his appearance before the Court during trial after his enlargement on bail.

15. Without commenting upon merit, rival contentions of the parties, but taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case, and also factors and parameters propounded by the Courts including Supreme Court necessary to be considered at the time of adjudication of bail, I find that petitioner may be enlarged on bail, at this stage.

16. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Special Judge, upon such further conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the trial Court, including the conditions enumerated hereinafter, so as to assure presence of petitioner/accused at the time of trial:-

(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner shall 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 Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) that the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial;

(iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected;

(v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner;

(vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail;

(vii) that in case petitioner indulges in repetition of similar offence(s) then, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled on taking appropriate steps by prosecution;

(viii) that the petitioner shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission; and

(ix) that the petitioner shall inform the Police/Court his contact number and shall keep on informing about change in address and contact number, if any, in future.

17. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and thereupon, it will also be open to the trial Court to impose any other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

18. In case the petitioner violates any condition imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.

19. Trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.

20. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore, shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application.

21. Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

22. Copy dasti.

23. Petitioner is permitted to produce/use copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the trial Court/Special Judge, and the said Court shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if required, may verify it from Website of the High Court.

(Vivek Singh Thakur),

Judge.

December 30, 2022

(Purohit)