IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.
Joginder - Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP (M) No. 781 of 2021
Decided On : 22-06-2021
Bail Application - Criminal Procedure - Sections 376, 506 IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking release in a case involving charges under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner, her brother, had raped her and threatened her to keep silent. The petitioner denied the allegations and sought bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, a 26-year-old permanent resident, had been in custody for about ten months, and the investigation was complete with the challan presented in the Trial Court. The court also considered the DNA report, which did not establish the petitioner as the biological father of the prosecutrix's child. Considering these factors, the court granted bail to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged involvement in the serious offence, the possibility of tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice, and the completeness of the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's prolonged custody, completion of investigation, lack of necessity for his custody, and the DNA report's findings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and ordered the petitioner's release on bail, subject to specified conditions.
JUDGMENT
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 117 of 2020, dated 31.08.2020, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Tissa, District Chamba, H.P.
2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is resident of the place. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.
3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 31.08.2020, the prosecurtrix (name withheld) accompanied by her parents, made a report to the police that she is a student of 10th standard and about six months back her massi died, so her mother and elder brother went to the house of her massi. Her father went to forest for grazing cattle and younger brother went to school. As per the prosecutrix, on that day, she was all alone in the house and their mule somehow got untied, so she called one Joginder (petitioner herein) to help her to tie down the mule. The petitioner came and helped her, thereafter, the petitioner forcibly committed rape on her. The petitioner threatened her not to divulge the incident to anyone. After some days, the petitioner again committed rape on her by threatening her. The petitioner used to call the prosecutrix time and again, but she refused. Due to the fear, the prosecutrix did not divulge the incidents to her parents and ultimately on 30.08.2020, she narrated the entire incident to her family members. Upon the complaint, so made by the prosecutrix, police machinery was set into motion and a case under the apt sections was registered against the petitioner and the investigation ensued. The prosecutrix was medically examined and she was found pregnant for 22 weeks and 06 days. On 31.08.2020 the petitioner was arrested and was medically examined. Thereafter, the police recorded the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., police visited the spot of occurrence and all the codal formalities were completed. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Record qua the date of birth of the prosecutrix was procured by the police and on 17.09.2020 the prosecutrix was sent to Child Welfare Committee, Chamba, and ultimately on 24.09.2020 the prosecutrix was sent to Naari Sewa Sadan, Mashobra, Shimla. During the course of further investigation, it was unearthed that the petitioner is related to the prosecutrix, as brother. As per the DNA report, the DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of the petitioner was not found consistent as biological father of DNA profile of the newborn child of the prosecutrix. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence, there is possibility that in case at this stage the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution witnesses, so the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is resident of the place. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially considering the facts that in the DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of the petitio
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.