RAJESH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE bail petitioner is in judicial custody for his having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 201 of the IPC and under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act recorded in FIR No. 263/15 of 10.08.2015 registered at Police Station, Dhalli, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P., hence, the instant bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C, has been fled by him for ordering for his release from judicial custody wherein he is presently lodged.

(2.) INVESTIGATING Officer/Inspector/SHO Param Dev is present in Court and has fled a detailed status report. He has apprised this Court that the bail applicant has uploaded the video clips from his mobile, computer and from various IP addresses including other electronic devices as exhaustively enumerated in the status report fled before this Court. The learned Deputy Advocate General has contended before this Court that the prolongation of the custody of the bail applicant is imperative for effectuating recovery at his instance of the electronic devices wherefrom the video clips at the instance of the bail applicant have been uploaded and in absence whereof the prosecution of the petitioner would not be carried forward. While rejecting the aforesaid submission of the learned Deputy Advocate General, this Court is rather of the view that with the bail applicant extantly suffering judicial custody besides, given the fact that the recovery of the aforesaid items at the instance of the bail petitioner has remained uneffectuated during the period of his police remand rather are untenably endeavoured to be effected during his judicial custody, it is deemed fit and appropriate that his further judicial incarceration ought not to be prolonged merely for non effectuation of recovery at his instance of electronic devices wherefrom the video clips of the victim/complainant have been uploaded by him on the internet. Even otherwise, predominantly the effectuation of recovery, if any, at his instance of the aforesaid electronic devices can be ordered to be endeavoured to be made by the Investigating Officer even when he is ordered to be released from judicial custody. Consequently, this Court would proceed to order for his release from judicial custody subject to the condition that he shall enable effectuation of recovery at his instance of all electronic devices as well as cell of phone(s) wherefrom he uploaded the video clips of the complainant/victim on the internet unless they stand not destroyed, in event of destruction whereof an adverse inference shall be drawn against him. However, in case the bail applicant omits to, in the aforesaid manner render cooperation to the Investigating Officer, this order shall stand automatically vacated and it shall be open to the Investigating Officer to take the bail applicant into custody. Moreover, what constrains this Court to grant the indulgence of bail to the bail applicant is the fact that no material has been placed on record by the prosecution portraying that in the event of bail being granted to the bail petitioner, there is every likelihood of his feeing from justice or tampering with prosecution evidence, as a sequel, then, the bail petitioner is entitled to the indulgence of bail. Consequently, the present bail application is allowed and the indulgence of bail is granted to the bail applicant subject to compliance of the following conditions: - -