Allowed

Karamvir Singh v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Apr 2015CRMPM/290/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted bail to petitioners charged under IPC and SC/ST Act, 1989, noting that allegations against the husband appeared baseless after his prosecution resulted in a reference to a larger family unit.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the bail applicants and the order of 23rd March, 2015 confirmed on five conditions including joining investigation and not leaving India.

Karamvir Singh Vs State of Hp — Caste Atrocities | Himachal Pradesh HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MP(M) No.290 of 2015. Decided on: 6^th April, 2015.

¶3

Karamvir Singh & others ...Petitioners. VERSUS State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ishita Bhandari, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Deputy Advocate General. ______________________________________________________________ Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. (Oral)

¶4

The instant petition has been moved under Section 439

¶5

of the code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the applicants/petitioners in respect of an F.I.R No. 26/2015 of 17.03.2015 lodged at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P., under Sections 420, 376, 506 read with Section 34, IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶6

On the previous date all the bail applicants surrendered

¶7

themselves to the jurisdiction of this Court and today too they have

¶8

…2…

¶9

surrendered to the jurisdiction of this Court, which comprises and constitutes ‘deemed custody’ within the meaning and ambit of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., so as to render the instant petitions maintainable under the aforesaid provisions of law, there being a statutory bar under The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the preferment of a petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶10

The Investigating Officer, Dy. S.P. Jatinder Kumar, SDPO

¶11

has placed on record status report portraying a detailed and threadbare investigation carried out by him into the offences allegedly committed by the bail applicants. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has also placed on record an affidavit sworn by the prosecutrix, who too is present in person in Court and has stated that she is extantly living in her matrimonial home along with her husband i.e. bail applicant Karamvir Singh. Given the fact that the alleged forcible sexual intercourse perpetrated by her husband/bail applicant Karamvir Singh upon her occurred/took place during the subsistence of the marriage of the prosecutrix with

¶12

…3…

¶13

the bail applicant Karamvir, obviously then there is no truth or veracity in the allegations constituted in the FIR qua her husband having perpetrated forcible sexual intercourse upon her. So far as the allegations constituted against the bail applicants under Section

¶14

420 of the IPC are concerned, they too are shred of their veracity, in the face of the statement made at bar by the learned senior counsel appearing for the bail applicants that the name of the prosecutrix which had remained unreflected in the apt register as the married partner of her husband Karamvir Singh, which sequeled her to maintain a ground for infraction of the provisions of Section 420,

¶15

IPC against the bail applicants, has now come to be reflected therein. Obviously then, no offence under Section 420, IPC stands constituted against the bail applicants. Moreover, given the absence of the material demonstrating that in the event of bail being granted to the bail applicants, there is every likelihood of the bail applicants fleeing from justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence, as a sequel, then this Court does not deem it fit and proper to order for the custodial interrogation of the bail

¶16

…4…

¶17

applicants. Accordingly, the indulgence of bail is granted to the bail

¶18

applicants and the order rendered on 23^rd March, 2015 is confirmed on the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) that the bail applicants shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Agency;

¶20

(ii) that they 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶21

(iii) that they shall not leave India without the permission of the Court;

¶22

(iv) that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the bail granted to the petitioners shall be forfeited and they shall be liable to be taken into custody; and

¶23

(v) that they shall apply for bail afresh when the challan is filed before the trial Court.

¶24

However, it is made clear that the findings recorded

¶25

herein above shall have no bearings on the merit of this case.

¶26

Dasti Copy.

¶27

6^th April, 2015. (Sureshwar Thakur) (jai) Judge

¶28

(Sureshwar Thakur)

Karamvir Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karamvir Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Sepehia Vs Hp State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Nafardeen Vs State of Hp

Dhani Ram Bhatia Vs Kalawati

Sapna Devi Vs State of Hp

Janam Singh Vs State of Hp

Sher Singh Vs State of Hp