CRMPM/2119/2022 of KRISHNA DEVI Vs STATE OF HP on 30 December 2022

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 Section439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner isseeking 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 120-B of the IndianPenal Code.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on11.02.2022 the complainant, made a complaint to thepolice, alleging therein that on 10.02.2022, at about 8:30p.m., the petitioner alongwith her husband Surender alias Sikandar came to the complainant for inviting her to abirthday function in their house. The complainant, onaccount of old acquaintance, went to the house of thepetitioner. On reaching the house of the petitioner,husband of the petitioner (Surender) forcibly committedrape upon the complainant inside the bathroom and thepetitioner had recorded video of the same from the window.The petitioner also gave beatings to the complainant withpipe and also threatened her by taking out Khukhari, dueto which the complainant sustained injuries. Consequently,FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be registered againstthe petitioner as well as her husband Surender. Duringinvestigation, it was unearthed that both the petitioner andher husband are habitual offenders and found indulged inmany cases. On 11.02.2022, both the petitioner and herhusband were arrested. Mobile phone, in which the videoof the complainant was recorded, was taken intopossession. The police had sent the CCTV footages of thecamera, installed in the house of the petitioner alongwithher mobile phone, for examination, The statement of the petitioner under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act wasrecorded and she got recovered the pipe, with which shehad given beatings to the petitioner.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has beenfalsely implicated in the present case, due to some enmity.He also submitted that investigation is almost completeand custody of the petitioner is not at all required and, assuch, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping thepetitioner, who is a woman, behind the bars for anunlimited period.

4. Conversely, the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral has contended that the petitioner does not deserveto be released on bail as she has been found involved in aserious offence, so, at this stage, in case she is enlarged onbail, she may tamper with the prosecution evidence andmay also flee from justice. He further contended that thepetitioner is habitual offender and many cases have beenregistered against her at different police stations.

5. I have given my considered thought to the rivalcontentions raised and also gone through the police file aswell as the status report filed by the prosecution and I amof the firm opinion that the petitioner is entitled to bereleased on bail. A perusal of the record reveals that theonly allegation against the petitioner is that she hadrecorded the video from the window, when her husband hadallegedly committed rape on the complainant in thebathroom. Though, the police had sent the CCTV footages ofthe camera, installed in the house of the petitioneralongwith her mobile phone, for examination, however, asper RFSL report, the video related to the case could not befound present in the data extracted via file systemextraction. The petitioner was arrested on 11.02.2022 andsince then she is behind the bars. There is no evidence onrecord to suggest that the she will tamper with theprosecution evidence or will flee from justice, if released onbail. Moreover, the investigation is almost complete andtrial 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. Thecontention of learned Additional Advocate General thatmany cases have been registered against the petitioner is noground to deny bail to the petitioner in the present case, asthose cases will be decided by the concerned Courts ontheir own merits. Considering the overall facts andcircumstances of the case, this Court finds that the presentis a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioneron bail is required to be exercised in her favour.Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is orderedthat the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, incase FIR No. 24/2022, dated 11.02.2022, registered atPolice Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections376, 323, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, shall beforthwith released on bail, in this case, subject to herfurnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand),with one surety in the likeamount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. This bailorder is subject, however, to the following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioner will appear before the Court and theInvestigating Officer whenever required ;Investigating Officer whenever required ;

(ii) that she will not directly or indirectly make anyinducement, threat or promise to any person acquaintedwith the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her fromdisclosing any facts to the Court or the police;inducement, threat or promise to any person acquaintedwith the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her fromdisclosing any facts to the Court or the police;

(iii) that she will not tamper with the prosecution evidence norhe will try to win over the Prosecution witnesses orterrorise them in any manner;he will try to win over the Prosecution witnesses orterrorise them in any manner;

(iv) that she will not deliberately and intentionally act in amanner which may tend to delay the investigation or thetrial of the case.manner which may tend to delay the investigation or thetrial of the case.

(v) that she will not leave India without prior permission ofthe Court.the Court.

6. Needless to say that the Investigating agency shall be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of thebail, if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by thepetitioner.

7. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given

in this order does not mean an expression of opinion onthe merits of the case and the trial Court will not beinfluenced by any observations made therein.

( Sushil Kukreja)

December 30, 2022

Judge

(raman)