SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(HP) 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
DHARAM PAL, S/O KARTAR SINGH – PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) No. 297 of 2022
Decided On : 22-02-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :PRASHANT SHARMA, AJIT SHARMA, ADVOCATES
For the Respondent:

Point of Law : POCSO Act – Kidnapping and Rape – Grant Bail – Accused and victim have Prior acquaintance and love.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 21 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 439, 164 , 436 and 436A – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 363 & 376 - POCSO Act - Section 4 - Commits rape - medically examined - Alleging therein that his minor daughter aged 16 ½ years i.e. victim-prosecutrix has gone missing and as such, efforts be made to locate her - On basis of aforesaid information, police started investigation and found that bail petitioner had been calling on mobile number of mother of the victim-prosecutrix - Police found that bail petitioner had given a telephonic call to a taxi driver namely Satish Kumar alias thereafter took bail petitioner and victim-prosecutrix to Baddi in his vehicle, from where present bail petitioner took victim-prosecutrix in some private vehicle - After ascertaining the location, police recovered the victim got her medically examined at CHC Medical Officer opined that there is nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse has not been conducted with the patient, however final opinion shall be given after the receipt of the report of RFSL - Police arrested the bail petitioner and since then, he is behind the bars – Held, Poverty or deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody - There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of Constitution and fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons - Petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FI - He shall make himself available for purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application - petition stands accordingly disposed of.

ORDER

Bail petitioner namely Dharampal, who is behind bars since 13.12.2021, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of Cr.PC, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 115 of 2021 dated 5.11.2021, under Sections 363 & 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered at PS Hatli, District Mandi, H.P. Respondent State has filed the status report in terms of order dated 4.2.2022. ASI Brij Lal, I/o P.S. Hatli, District Mandi, H.P has also come present with records. Records perused and returned.

2. Perusal of status report/record reveals that on 5.11.2021, complainant Rakesh Kumar, who happens to be father of the victimprosecutrix (name withheld), lodged aforesaid FIR, alleging therein that his minor daughter aged 16 ½ years i.e. victim-prosecutrix has gone missing and as such, efforts be made to locate her. On the basis of aforesaid information, police started investigation and found that bail petitioner had been calling on the mobile number of mother of the victim-prosecutrix. During investigation, police found that bail petitioner had given a telephonic call to a taxi driver namely Satish Kumar alias Kalu Ram, who thereafter took bail petitioner and victim-prosecutrix to Baddi in his vehicle, from where present bail petitioner took the victim-prosecutrix to Rohtak in some private vehicle. After ascertaining the location, police recovered the victim-prosecutrix from Rohtak and got her medically examined at CHC Baldwara. Medical Officer opined that there is nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse has not been conducted with the patient, however final opinion shall be given after the receipt of the report of RFSL. On 9.12.2021, police arrested the bail petitioner and since then, he is behind the bars.

3. Since Challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

4. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the Challan in the competent court of law contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail. While making this Court to peruse the status report/record, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that though there is overwhelming evidence suggestive of the fact that the bail petitioner taking undue advantage of the innocence and minority of the victim-prosecutrix not only made her to elope with him, but also sexually assaulted her against her wishes, but even otherwise consent, if any, of victim-prosecutrix being minor is immaterial and as such, bail petition having been filed by the bail petitioner deserves outright rejection.

5. This Court having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, especially, statement made by the victim-prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.PC, finds that victim-prosecutrix and present bail petitioner had prior acquaintance and they had been meeting and talking to each other for the last three years prior to the alleged incident. Victim-prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC before the Magistrate has categorically stated that she loves the bail petitioner and wants to solemnize marriage with him and she was forcibly taken by her parents for medical examination. Most importantly, victim-prosecutrix in her aforesaid statement has stated that she had asked the bail petitioner to take her to Rohtak from Barnal and nothing happened against her wishes and she shall have no objection in case bail petitioner is acquitted of charges leveled against him. No doubt, consent, if any, of the victim-prosecutrix is immaterial in view of her age, but having taken note of the conduct of the victim-prosecutrix, which is quite apparent f

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top