Arvind Kumar vs. State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.M.P(M) No. 932 of 2012.

Date of decision: 4.10.2012.

Arvind Kumar son of Sh. Dharam Chand, r/o village Bari, Tehsil Nurpur, Distt. Kangra, H.P.

…..Petitioner.

Vs.

State of Himachal Pradesh	Respondent.
---------------------------	-------------

Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General.

Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral).

This is an application, under section 439 Cr.P.C., for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 69/2012 dated 30.3.2012 registered at Police Station, Jawali, Distt. Kangra, H.P. under sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B IPC.

2. It has been stated that petitioner has been implicated in the case on false allegations. The police arrested the petitioner after a gap of more than one month. The petitioner has committed no offence. The investigation in the case is complete. The petitioner was arrested on 2.5.2012. The complainant earlier gave the name of driver Sumer Singh. The petitioner moved an application for bail , which has been dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast

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

Track Court, Kangra on 20.8.2012. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds as per the directions of the court. The submission has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

3. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that on 30.3.2012, Pawan Kumar submitted a complaint at police station. He has stated that on 23.8.2012 at about 5.45 a.m., his daughter had gone to bus stand for bringing milk, but she did not return. She was searched but could not be traced, her age was about 16½ years. The father of Ankush had also not cooperated nor Ankush was found in his house. The complainant firmly believed that his daughter has been kidnapped by Ankush. On this case was registered.

4. On 30.3.2012, supplementary statement of Pawan Kumar was recorded. The prosecutrix on 28.3.2012 and 29.3.2012 had told her elder sister that she had been kidnapped by Sumer, Anil. Sumer Singh and Anil disclosed that they knew Ankush and prosecutrix, section 120-B IPC was added during investigation. Sumer Singh and Anil were arrested on 30.3.2012. Ramesh Chand father of Ankush had disclosed that Ankush and prosecutrix were living in the room of Vijay Kumar in village Khani near Bharmour, however, prosecutrix and Vijay were not found in that house on 2.4.2012, the prosecutrix and Ankush were found at Banikhet on 7.4.2012.

5. The statements of prosecutrix under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The prosecutrix stated that on 20.3.2012, Pawan Kumar son of Gian Chand met her in Fatehpur. He told that her parents had called her near bridge. She

…2…

accompanied Pawan Kumar on his bike, Pawan Kumar took her in the field and in the bushes committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. In the meantime, Manu brother-in-law of Pawan came there, who also committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix told them that she would lodge a complaint against them. They told that they had already prepared her video and they would circulate the video.

6. On 27.3.2012 Ankush brother of Manu gave the threat of video and called her at 11.00 p.m. near the road. The prosecutrix under the threat of video met him at 11.00 p.m, Ankush alongwith Arvind Kumar came there and took him to Chamba in the house of Pawan. He then shifted in the house of another relative. Manu, Sunil also came there. They committed forcible sexual intercourse with her several times. Sunil only caught hold her legs.

7. Ankush took her from one place to another to avoid his arrest. In the meantime, Ankush received a telephonic call from his father, who told him to eliminate the prosecutrix. Whenever prosecutrix tried to talk to her parents, Ankush threatened her and told her to tell her father Pawan that she was kidnapped by Bobby and Sumer. The prosecutrix has stated that Sumer and Bobby were not involved in her kidnapping. She named them at the instance of Ankush. The prosecutrix was got medically examined.

8. In the investigation, involvement of Sumer Singh and Anil Kumar was not established. Ramesh Chand has been granted anticipatory bail. The petitioner Arvind alias Makhi was arrested on 2.5.2012. Ankush, Avinash Kumar alias Manu, Pawan Kumar, Sunil Kumar, Arvind Kumar are in judicial custody. The date of birth of prosecution is 20.10.1995. The submission has been made for rejection of bail application.

9. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that challan has been submitted in the court. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of supplementary statement. The learned Addl. Advocate General has opposed the bail application. In the statement, under section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has stated that when she came out of the house, she found a Scorpio vehicle there, in which there were three boys, namely Makhi, Anku and one friend of Makhi. When she reached near Anku, she was dragged by Makhi inside the vehicle and his friend closed her mouth and put her in the vehicle. Makhi drove the vehicle. Anku and friend of Makhi sat with her on the rear seat. Anku and friend of Makhi tide her hands and put her under the seat.

10. The police stopped the vehicle at Rehan, Makhi told that they were going to Raja Ka Talab. They took her to Chamba in the house of Pawan. Makhi dropped his friend, prosecutrix and Anku near road they climbed the hill and reached the house of Pawan. There are allegations against Arvind alias Makhi. The case has been registered for commission of various offences including under section 120-B IPC. On the basis of statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that prosecutrix has said nothing against the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for bail, under section 439 Cr.P.C.

11. Resultantly, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to repeat the bail application after consideration of charge by the trial Court. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case.

(Hem) Judge.

October 4, 2012. ( Kuldip Singh ),