LOVELY Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Sandeep Sharma, J. -
(1.)Though by way of instant petition filed under S.439 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in respect of FIR No. 293, dated 15.9.2016, registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh under Ss. 376, 506 and 120B IPC and Ss. 4 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act but learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly states that at this stage, he does not press the prayer for grant of bail. However, while inviting attention of this Court to order dated 8.4.2019 passed by trial court while recording statements of PW-4 and PW5, learned counsel contends that right of the petitioner to cross- examine aforesaid witnesses, could not be closed by learned Court below, on account of absence of his counsel, rather, court should have either adjourned the matter for cross-examination or should have appointed some legal aid counsel, to represent the accused, while recording statements of PW-4 and PW-5.
(2.)Mr. Anirudh Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, while referring to Ss. 401, 482 and 483 CrPC, contends that this Court has inherent powers to correct the illegality, if any, committed by a court while conducting trial, as such, order dated 8.4.2019 in as much as right of crossexamination of petitioner has been closed, may be quashed and set aside, while exercising power vested in this Court under aforesaid provisions of law.
(3.)Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, while opposing aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, contends that since there is specific remedy provided under the Statute to lay challenge to order sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, petition at hand deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merit. Mr. Thakur, also contends that otherwise also prayer as has been made herein above, cannot be considered/granted in the instant proceedings filed under S.439 CrPC. Lastly, Learned Deputy Advocate General contends that the order dated 8.4.2019 sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings was passed more than a year back and there is no plausible explanation rendered on record qua the delay in approaching this court with the aforesaid prayer, as such, present petition deserves dismissal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.