Allowed

Bablu Sahi v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Apr 2015CRMPM/291/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted bail to a co-accused facing sexual offences and assault charges. The judge noted a lack of physical injuries on the accused supporting the prosecution's claim of forcible intercourse and the prosecutrix's failure to appear in court, deeming prolonged detention inappropriate. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions, explicitly stating findings do n

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to furnishing bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety, cooperating with investigation, and complying with other conditions.

Bablu Sahi Vs State of Hp — Bail and Remand | Himachal Pradesh HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MP(M) No.291 of 2015.

¶3

Decided on: 7^th April, 2015.

Bablu Sahi

...Petitioner.

VERSUS

State of H.P. …Respondents. Coram

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Deputy Advocate General.

¶10

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. (Oral)

¶11

The instant application has been filed under Section

¶12

439 of the Cr.P.C., for grant of bail to the bail applicant, who is presently undergoing judicial detention for his having allegedly committed offences under Sections 376, 452, 34, IPC with respect

¶13

…2…

¶14

to FIR No.16 of 2014 of 14.01.2014 registered at Police Station, Kullu.

¶15

The prosecutrix was major at the time of the alleged

¶16

commission of offences. The principal accused is Sharad Sharman.

¶17

The bail applicant herein is a co-accused. The inculpatory role as attributed to the bail applicant herein is of his having gagged the mouth of the prosecutrix hence facilitated the perpetration of the alleged forcible sexual intercourse on the person of the prosecutrix by the principal accused aforesaid. The facilitation hence afforded

¶18

by the bail petitioner herein to the principal accused to consummate the offence appears to be highly specious and pretextual, inasmuch as even if the prosecutrix was precluded from shrieking and screaming by the bail applicant herein taking to gag her mouth, nonetheless, it was open for the prosecutrix to take to free herself from the clutches of both, the principal accused and the bail applicant herein by endeavouring to make apposite physical efforts. The endeavour/concert on the part of the prosecutrix to resist the sexual overtures of the principal accused tenably

¶19

…3…

¶20

comprised in her taking to inflict wounds and abrasions on the person of the bail petitioner herein and the principal accused, who allegedly forcibly perpetrated the sexual intercourse upon her person. However, a perusal of the record pertaining to the MLC conducted on the person of the bail petitioner and the principal accused omits to depict that at the relevant time their bodies gained any injury or abrasions to garner a conclusion that hence the prosecutrix resisted the sexual overtures of the principal accused. Lack of existence of the abrasions or wounds on the persons of the bail applicant and the principal accused dispels the inference that the main accused perpetrated any forcible sexual intercourse upon the person of the prosecutrix. With the role of the main accused having hence stood exculpation, the sequeling inference is that the prosecutrix has leveled false allegations against the bail petitioner. In sequel, no prima facie case is made out against the bail applicant herein. Further more, the factum as disclosed in the application of the prosecutrix having omitted to depose before the learned trial Court despite repeated summons issued to her to appear before the

¶21

…4…

¶22

learned trial Court portrays the factum that she has indulged in a

¶23

bout of prevarication while lodging the FIR against the bail applicant and the principal accused. In face thereof, it would insagacious to prolong the judicial incarceration of the bail applicant herein. More so, given the absence of material demonstrating that in the event of bail being granted to the bail applicant, there is every likelihood of the bail applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence, as a sequel, the indulgence of bail is granted to the bail applicant subject to compliance of following conditions:-

¶24

(i) that the bail applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu.

¶25

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

¶26

(ii) that he shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

¶27

…5…

¶28

dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

(v) that he shall deposit his passport, if any, with the SHO of police station concerned.

¶32

However, it is made clear that the findings recorded

¶33

herein above shall have no bearing on the merits of this case. Application is allowed accordingly.

¶34

Dasti Copy.

¶35

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

Bablu Sahi v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu Sahi 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

Sapna Devi Vs State of Hp

Janam Singh Vs State of Hp

Sher Singh Vs State of Hp

Surinder Singh Vs State

Kuldeep Kumar Vs State of Hp

Des Raj Vs Satish Chand