IMPORTANT POINT
Bail should not be granted in grave offences against minors.

JUDGMENT

Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner, Makhan Din has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’], originating from FIR No.260 of 2023, dated 22.08.2023, under Sections 363, 368, 376 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’], registered with Police Station [Sadar], District Chamba [H.P.].

Factual Matrix

2. The case set up by Mr. N.K. Thakur, Learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh and

Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocates, is that a complaint was got registered at the behest of one Smt. Mir Bibi on 22.08.2023, leading to the registration of FIR No. 260 of 2023 in Police Station [Sadar], Chama, District Chamba [H.P.], alleging that the bail petitioner [Makhan Din] and Alam had kidnapped their daughter [X], aged 14 years, on 19.08.2023 during day time. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant [Mir Bibi] came back to her home, for lunch, as she was employed in MNAREGA, she was told by her younger daughter that the bail petitioner [Makhan Din] and his brother Alam had kidnapped her daughter [X], by muffling her mouth and then by putting her forcibly in a vehicle.

It was also stated in the FIR that the complainant [Mir Bibi] tried to contact her daughter on phone, but, she did not respond. In view of this, despite the fact that the bail petitioner [Makhan Din] is the son-in-law of Mir Bibi, yet, the instant FIR was got registered against the bail petitioner. It is further averred that the bail petitioner has no connection with the alleged offence. It is further averred in the bail petition that the investigation is complete and nothing is to be recovered from the bail petitioner. It is further averred that the bail petitioner has undertaken to cooperate with the Investigating Agencies and not to cause any inducement, threat or promise to the witnesses in any manner. It is further averred that no fruitful purpose will be achieved by curtailing the liberty of the bail petitioner, by keeping him in jail. It is further averred that no offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code or under the POCSO Act, is made out.

The bail petitioner has further stated that he had filed a Bail Application No 251 of 2023, on 22.12.2023 before the Learned Special Judge, Chamba [H.P.], but the same was dismissed on 16.01.2024 [Annexure P-1]. The bail petitioner has further averred that the instant case is a result of vindictiveness at. the instance of the complainant, who has some ill will against her son-in-law i.e. the bail petitioner and it is in this background that the false accusation and false case has been registered against him. In this background, it is prayed that the bail petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

3. Upon issuance of notice on 26.02.2024, the State Authorities were directed to file reply/status report. The matter was then listed on 11.03.2024, when, the Status Report, on the instructions of Incharge/SHO, Police Station [Sadar], Chamba, District Chamba [H.P.] dated 06.03.2024 was filed in the Court. Thereafter, on the prayer made by the Learned Senior Counsel for the bail petitioner, the matter was listed on 11.03.2024, so as to enable the parties to have look at the status report and the matter was listed for consideration on 26.03.2024.

Stand of State Authorities:

4. A perusal of the Status Report reveals the contents of FIR No 260 of 2023 dated 22.08.2023 and. as per the prosecution story, a complaint was lodged by the complainant [Mir Bibi] that his son-in-law i.e. instant bail petitioner {Makhan Din} and his brother had come to their house on 19.08.2023, when, the complainant [Mir Bibi] had gone for employment being a laborer in MNERAGA. During lunch hours, when, she came to her house on 19.08.2023 at around 01:00 p.m., her younger daughter told her that the bail petitioner and his brother had