Pratiksha Hinge | Government Law collegeMumbai | 10th March 2020
Tejpal Banga vs State Of H.P. And Others on 6 March, 2020
Facts of the case:-
The gist of the status report is :- on 21.07.2019 a complaint was lodged by one Amardeep Chand to the effect that :- his daughter, aged sixteen and half years, was pursuing her B.Sc. Course in Khalsa .College, Anandpur Sahib (Punjab) w.e.f. 20.06.2019; on 18.07.2019, she had blue marks around her neck and on lips when she returned home from college; slings of her bag were broken and she looked scared; she did not disclose anything despite having been repeatedly asked by her mother ; on 19.07.2019, she went to college, as usual, however, did not return home; whereafter he pursued the matter with college administration; after checking the CCTV footage, the college administration informed him that his daughter, though got off from the bus at college gate, but did not enter the college premises; on further investigation at home, he found a suit (clothes) of his missing daughter along with Rs. 13,000/- as well as one mobile box; he apprehended that his daughter might have been kidnapped by some boy by inducement of threat and false promise of marriage.On the basis of these allegations, FIR was registered, investigation was carried out. The prosecutrix was recovered on 29.07.2019. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 30.07.2019. The petitioner was taken into custody on 25.09.2019.
During investigation, it has come out that :- the bail petitioner and prosecutrix remained together on 25.07.2019 and 26.07.2019 in a rented accommodation in Ludhiana (Punjab) ; basic necessities for living in this rented accommodation were provided to them by accused Dharam Pal; he also allegedly committed certain obscene acts there with the prosecutrix in absence of the bail petitioner; the prosecutrix disclosed this fact to the bail petitioner thereafter both of them ran away from that place on 27.07.2019; the bail petitioner as well as prosecutrix also broke their mobile phones; separate case has been registered against accused Dharam Pal under Section 354, 368, 201 and Sections 8, 17 and 21 of the POCSO Act, who had been granted bail on 27.09.2019; the prosecutrix was not able to disclose name of the hotel at Bhatinda where she alleged to have been raped by the petitioner; RFSL, Dharamshala in its report gave the result as under:-
“1. Blood and semen were not detected in exhibit-la (lower/pyjami, name withheld), exhibit-1b (pubic hair, name withheld), exhibit 1c (nail clippings, name withheld), exhibit-
id (vaginal swab. name withheld), exhibit-le (vaginal smear slides, name withheld), exhibit-3 (pubic hair, Tej Pal Banga) and exhibit-4 (smegma swab, Tej Pal Banga).
2. Human blood was detected in exhibit-5 (blood sample, Tej Pal Banga)……..”
In all, she stayed with the petitioner for about 20 to 25 days. The allegations against the petitioner are yet to be proved by leading cogent evidence. The petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 25.09.2019 and has participated in the investigation. Nothing is to be recovered from him.
The investigation is complete. Since the petitioner is in custody for the last about seven months, he cannot be incarcerated for an indefinite period.
Issues raised:-
1. Expression of prima facie reasons for granting or refusing to grant bail is a requirement of law especially where such bail orders are appealable so as to indicate application of mind to the matter under consideration and the reasons for conclusion.
2. Recording of reasons is necessary since the accused/prosecution/victim has every right to know the reasons for grant or refusal to grant bail.
Judgement:-
In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail in the instant FIR on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) only with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Learned Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:-
1. That the petitioner will join the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.
2. That the Petitioner shall not hamper the investigation.
3. That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
4. 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.
5. Petitioner shall attend the trial and will remain present in learned Trial Court on each and every hearing of the case in question.
It shall be open for the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner abuses the liberty granted and breaches the conditions of bail.Any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression on merits of the case and learned Trial Court shall here in above.
Leave a Reply