Allowed

Narender Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Dec 2019CRMPM/2006/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted anticipatory bail to Narender Kumar in a case involving CRC and POCSO offences. The Court considered his health, residence, and non-custodial evidence requirements before allowing release.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and one surety in like amount. Conditions include appearance as required, no leaving India without permission, and no inducement/threats to

Narender Kumar Vs State of Hp — Child Custody and Guardianship | Himachal Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

	Cr.MP(M) No. 2006 of 2019 Decided on: 2^ndDecember, 2019
Narender Kumar State of Himachal Pradesh	….Petitioner Versus …Respondent
Coram *The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ch* *Whether approved for repo*	*ander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.* *rting?¹Yes.*
For the petitioner:	Mr. Prashant Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the respondent/State:	Mr. P.K. Bhatti, Addl. AG, with Mr. Raju Ram Rahi and Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Dy. AGs.
	S/I Narender Kumar, Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.

¶3

______________________________________________________________________ Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).

¶4

The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 242 of 2019, dated 23.10.2019, under Sections 354, 354A and 506 IPC and Sections 10 and 12 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.

¶5

As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful

¶6

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶7

¶8

purpose will be served by sending him behind the bars, so he be released on bail.

¶9

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 23.10.2019 the prosecutrix (name withheld) made a complaint to the police alleging that she studies in Government Senior Secondary School, Gangath, where the petitioner works as Teacher. As per the prosecutrix, the petitioner is Physics Teacher and on 22.10.2019 he called the prosecutrix in the Laboratory alone and told her that he wants to hug her. When the prosecutrix refused, he forcibly hugged her. Prior to the incident, the petitioner also teased other girls and threatened them. The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother and reported the matter to the police. Upon the complaint, so made by the prosecutrix, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Police prepared the spot map and clicked photographs. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses. During the course of investigation, a collective complaint has been made to the police by the victim girl students. On 23.10.2019 the petitioner had sudden attack, so he was rushed to PHC, Gangath, wherefrom he was referred to CH Nurpur and then to Dr. RPCMC, Tanda. The petitioner was taken to Ajay Heart Care Centre, Pathankot, by his relatives and then he was referred for further treatment to Care Medical Centre, Delhi. Upon the direction of this Court, the petitioner joined the investigation. As per the police, statements of victim girl students under Section 164 Cr.P.C. have been recorded. Police procured the records qua date of birth and caste of

¶10

¶11

the victims, including the prosecutrix. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. As per the police, there is anger in the society against the petitioner. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious crime, he is very clever person. There is possibility that in case at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his application be dismissed.

¶12

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully.

¶13

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, as he is resident of the place and joining and co-operating in the investigation. He has argued that the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, as nothing is to be recovered at his instance. The petitioner is a patient and recuperating from sudden heart attack, so the bail application be allowed. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper

¶14

¶15

with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed.

¶16

In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. His custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, as he is resident of the place and is joining and co-operating in the investigation, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

¶17

At this stage, considering the fact that the investigation in the matter is complete, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, he is heart patient and his custody is not at all required by the police, considering the other allegations, which have come on record, the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation and also considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in

¶18

the event of his arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner,

¶19

¶20

in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 242 of 2019, dated 23.10.2019, under Sections 354, 354A and 506 IPC and Sections 10 and 12 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following

¶21

conditions:

¶22

(i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required.

¶23

(ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

¶24

(iii) That the petitioner 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 such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court.

¶25

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

¶26

Copy dasti.

¶27

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)

¶28

2^nd December, 2019 Judge

¶29

(virender)

Narender Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narender Kumar 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

Sajid Hossain Vs State of Hp

Sunny Pal Vs State of Hp

Narinder Kuar Pall Vs State of Hp

Subhash Chand Vs State of Hp

Manoj Kumar Vs Arun Kumar and Others

Arjun Singh Vs State of Hp