SUBHADRA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. By way of present petition(s) filed under Section 439(2) Cr.PC, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner-complainant for cancellation of bail granted to the private respondents herein namely Lal Hussain and Mohammad Ali, vide order dated 21.10.2019, passed in CrMP(M) Nos. 1868 and 1869 of 2019 in FIR No. 42/2019 dated 4.10.2019 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? under Sections 376-D, 342, 323 and 506 of the IPC registered at Women Police Station at Bhiuli, District Mandi, H.P.

(2.) Reply to the petition on behalf of the State has been filed. Sub Inspector Pawan Kumar, Women Police Station Mandi, has also come present with records. Petitioner-complainant by way of instant petitions has sought cancellation of bail granted by this Court to the private respondents on the ground that after passing of order dated 21.10.2019, whereby the private respondents were ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in FIR (supra), they have been extending threats to the complainant. Petitioner-complainant has stated that on 18.11.2019, respondents alongwith other 4-5 persons came to her residence and threatened with dire consequences. She has alleged that respondents have threatened that in case she does not withdraw the complaint lodged at her behest, she would be killed. Besides above, petitioner- complainant has also alleged that she belongs to Scheduled Caste category but police willfully and purposely did not insert the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act while lodging FIR against the respondents.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the record made available to this Court by the investigating agency, this Court finds that at the first instance, complainant never lodged any complaint with the Police that she was being harassed and ill treated by the respondents on account of her being from a Scheduled Caste category. Similarly, reply to the petition filed by the Superintendent of Police Mandi nowhere suggests that complaint, if any, ever came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner-complainant after passing of order dated 21.10.2019 in CrMP(M) Nos. 1868 and 1869 of 2019, alleging therein that threats are being extended to her by the respondents. Superintendent of Police has specifically stated in his reply that no application/complaint in writing, oral or telephonically ever came to be received from the victim in the Police Station Mandi that she is being threatened by the respondents. Reply filed by respondent No.1-State further reveals that after completion of investigation, challan stands filed in the competent court of law. There is no material worth credence available on record suggestive of the fact that petitioner-complainant was ever extended threats by the respondents after their enlargement on bail in case FIR referred herein above.