Reena Sood v. State of Himachal Pradesh

For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 73 of 2012 dated 11.8.2012 registered at Police Station East, Shimla under Sections 365, 363, 366, 506 IPC.

2. It has been stated that the above case has been registered in which petitioner has been falsely implicated. The petitioner is innocent. The petitioner is doing the work of sale and purchase of clothes at her residence. She has one and half years old baby. In view of registration of the above case, the petitioner is apprehending her arrest in the case. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds, no recovery is to be made from Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?yes 2 the petitioner. The submission has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

3. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that on

11.8.2012 Ram Piari, mother of the prosecutrix lodged report that her daughter since 9.8.2012 was missing. The complainant suspected the involvement of Sunil Kumar in kidnapping her daughter, who is about 16 years of age. On this case has been registered.

4. It has come in the investigation that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 4.2.1997 and on the date of occurrence, she was 15 years 6 months old. Sunil Kumar was arrested on 11.8.2012 but was ultimately discharged on 17.8.2012 under Section 169 Cr.P.C.

5. On 12.8.2012 Karam Chand made a statement that on

9.8.2012 he had seen the prosecutrix with the petitioner at about 11.00 a.m. On 13.8.2012 petitioner disclosed that prosecutrix had come to her on 9.8.2012 but left her and had gone to her own house. The petitioner told that she was at Delhi.

6. On realising the police pressure the prosecutrix in the intervening night of 14/15.8.2012 at 2.00 a.m. reached the house of one Sharmila a distant relative of Sunil Kumar and from there the prosecutrix was recovered in the presence of her parents. The prosecutrix disclosed that the petitioner had taken her to Gurgaon in her personal car on 9.8.2012. The prosecutrix stayed with the petitioner from 9.8.2012 to 13.8.2012 in the house of the friend of the petitioner. On 14.8.2012 she proceeded to Shimla from Gurgaon and ultimately reached the house of Sharmila.

7. The petitioner has joined the investigation on 23.8.2012 and 24.8.2012 but she is not co-operating in the investigation and not 3 disclosing the true facts. She is not disclosing why the prosecutrix was kept with Amit and Kuldeep at Gurgaon. She is also not disclosing the addresses of those persons. She has also not produced the car in which the prosecutrix was taken to Gurgaon. On account of non- cooperation of the petitioner, the investigation has been adversely affected. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail application.

8. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that prosecutrix is now with her parents. There is no allegation of sexual harassment of the prosecutrix. It appears the prosecutrix of her own had gone with the petitioner. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. The learned Additioal Advocate General has submitted that petitioner had taken away the prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship. The prosecutrix remained with the petitioner from 9.8.2012 to 13.8.2012 and on realising that the police was tracing the prosecutrix, the petitioner managed to send the prosecutrix to Shimla from Gurgaon. The learned Additional Advocate General pressed for rejection of the bail.

9. The supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded. The statement of prosecutrix has also been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The complainant has stated that on the asking of the petitioner the prosecutrix 3-4 days earlier had made a plan to go to Delhi. On 9.8.2012 the prosecutrix had brought some clothes and kept those with the luggage of the petitioner and on 9.8.2012 the prosecutrix had gone to Gurgaon with petitioner. She has also stated that prosecutrix had not gone to the school on that date. She changed her school uniform in public toilet and threw the school uniform in the 4 dustbin. In the statement of the prosecutrix also, nothing has been stated that she has been sexually exploited when she accompanied the petitioner from Shimla to Gurgaon or on her return or during her stay at Gurgaon.

10. The prosecutrix stayed at Gurgaon for about 4/5 days. There is nothing in the status report that during that stay, she complained to anybody. It has also come in the investigation that some part of the journey from Gurgaon to Shimla the prosecutrix had done in a bus. But there is nothing that during that period also, she narrated the incident to anyone. The prosecutrix during her stay at Gurgaon did not contact her parents. In any case the prosecutrix is now with her parents.

11. The investigating agency has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is not disclosing the addresses of Amit and Kuldeep nor she has produced the car in which the prosecutrix was taken from Shimla to Gurgaon. It has not been pointed out that the prosecutrix is not aware of the place where she stayed with the petitioner in the house of Amit and Kuldeep at Gurgaon. The investigating agency has not stated that any attempt was made at Gurgaon to find out the place where the prosecutrix stayed with the petitioner.

12. The petitioner is required to cooperate in the investigation. The investigating agency shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps in case of non-cooperation of the petitioner in the investigation. The petitioner is a woman, she is entitled to special consideration under Section 437 Cr.P.C. for purpose of bail. In these circumstances, the 5 petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

13. In view of above, the petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in FIR No. 73 of 2012 dated 11.8.2012 registered at Police Station East, Shimla under Sections 365, 363, 366, 506 IPC, she be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of ‘25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the conditions that the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate in the investigation. She will not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. It is made clear that in case the petitioner shall not cooperate in the investigation, then the investigating agency shall be at liberty to approach this Court for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner.

14. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail petition only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. August 28, 2012. (GRS) ( Kuldip Singh), Judge.