Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMPM/2119/2022 on 30 December 2022
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No. 2119 of 2022
Decided on: 30.12.2022 ______________________________________________________________ Krishna Devi
....Petitioner Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent _
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Addl. AG. Sushil Kukreja, Judge By way of instant petition, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner is seeking bail in case FIR No. 24/2022, dated 11.02.2022, registered at Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections 376, 323, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 11.02.2022 the complainant, made a complaint to the police, alleging therein that on 10.02.2022, at about 8:30 p.m., the petitioner alongwith her husband Surender alias
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
Sikandar came to the complainant for inviting her to a birthday function in their house. The complainant, on account of old acquaintance, went to the house of the petitioner. On reaching the house of the petitioner, husband of the petitioner (Surender) forcibly committed rape upon the complainant inside the bathroom and the petitioner had recorded video of the same from the window. The petitioner also gave beatings to the complainant with pipe and also threatened her by taking out Khukhari, due to which the complainant sustained injuries. Consequently, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be registered against the petitioner as well as her husband Surender. During investigation, it was unearthed that both the petitioner and her husband are habitual offenders and found indulged in many cases. On 11.02.2022, both the petitioner and her husband were arrested. Mobile phone, in which the video of the complainant was recorded, was taken into possession. The police had sent the CCTV footages of the camera, installed in the house of the petitioner alongwith her mobile phone, for examination, The statement of the petitioner under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was recorded and she got recovered the pipe, with which she had given beatings to the petitioner.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, due to some enmity. He also submitted that investigation is almost complete and custody of the petitioner is not at all required and, as such, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner, who is a woman, behind the bars for an unlimited period.
4. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has contended that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail as she has been found involved in a serious offence, so, at this stage, in case she is enlarged on bail, she may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He further contended that the petitioner is habitual offender and many cases have been registered against her at different police stations.
5. I have given my considered thought to the rival contentions raised and also gone through the police file as well as the status report filed by the prosecution and I am of the firm opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. A perusal of the record reveals that the only allegation against the petitioner is that she had recorded the video from the window, when her husband had allegedly committed rape on the complainant in the bathroom. Though, the police had sent the CCTV footages of the camera, installed in the house of the petitioner alongwith her mobile phone, for examination, however, as per RFSL report, the video related to the case could not be found present in the data extracted via file system extraction. The petitioner was arrested on 11.02.2022 and since then she is behind the bars. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the she will tamper with the prosecution evidence or will flee from justice, if released on bail. Moreover, the investigation is almost complete and trial may take sufficiently long time to conclude. Therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served if the petitioner, who is a woman, is kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. The contention of learned Additional Advocate General that many cases have been registered against the petitioner is no ground to deny bail to the petitioner in the present case, as those cases will be decided by the concerned Courts on their own merits. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in her favour. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 24/2022, dated 11.02.2022, registered at Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections 376, 323, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, shall be forthwith released on bail, in this case, subject to her furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees twenty five thousand), with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. This bail order is subject, however, to the following conditions:
(i) that the petitioner will appear before the Court and the Investigating Officer whenever required ;
(ii) that she 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 any facts to the Court or the police;
(iii) that she will not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor he will try to win over the Prosecution witnesses or terrorise them in any manner;
(iv) that she will not deliberately and intentionally act in a manner which may tend to delay the investigation or the trial of the case.
(v) that she will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
6. Needless to say that the Investigating agency shall be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of the bail, if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the petitioner.
7. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein.
( Sushil Kukreja )
December 30, 2022 Judge (raman)