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) 21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J.
Vishal Kumar, S/o. Sh. Ranjeet Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) No. 274 of 2022
Decided On : 03-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sh. Ankush Dass Sood, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj.
For the Respondent: Sh. Shiv Pal Manhans, Addl. AG With Sh. Bhupinder Thakur And Sh. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, DY. AGS.

Point of Law : Grant of Bail - Fact that the petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the conditions of bail, if so granted.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 294, 354-D, 355, 506 - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 439 - POCSO Act - Section 12 – Grant of Bail - Offence of Obscene acts and songs – Stalking – Criminal intimidation – Charged - Bail application - Prosecutrix made a complaint against the petitioner, wherein it has been alleged that she is a student of 10+1 in Hatgarh School, which is at a distance of 3 Kms from her house - She further alleged that last year when schools were closed on account of lockdown, petitioner used to make calls on her mother’s mobile, compelling prosecutrix to talk to him, but when mother of prosecutrix asked reason for calling her daughter, petitioner stopped calling - However, when school of prosecutrix reopened, petitioner started following prosecutrix on her way to school and also started harassing her by passing comments - When prosecutrix reached her school around petitioner asked her friend to tell prosecutrix to come outside school gate and when prosecutrix along with her friend came there, petitioner caught prosecutrix from her neck and slapped her.

Finding of the Court:

petitioner has argued that petitioner is 26 years of age and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice - He has further argued that petitioner is behind bars since his arrest and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an unlimited period - He has argued that keeping in view material, which has come on record, and also age of petitioner, the bail application be allowed - Conversely, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that petitioner is a drug addict and at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may repeat such offences again and may also threaten prosecutrix - He has prayed that bail application of petitioner be dismissed.

Result: Petition is disposed of.

ORDER :

The present bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been maintained by the petitioner for grant of bail in case FIR No. 421/2021, dated 23.12.2021, under Sections 294, 354-D, 355, 506 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P.

2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, the petitioner is permanent resident of District Mandi and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. 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 23.12.2021, the prosecutrix made a complaint against the petitioner, wherein it has been alleged that she is a student of 10+1 in Hatgarh School, which is at a distance of 3 Kms from her house. She further alleged that last year when schools were closed on account of lockdown, the petitioner used to make calls on her mother’s mobile, compelling the prosecutrix to talk to him, but when mother of the prosecutrix asked the reason for calling her daughter, the petitioner stopped calling. However, when school of the prosecutrix reopened, the petitioner started following the prosecutrix on her way to school and also started harassing her by passing comments. On 23.12.2021, when prosecutrix reached her school around 8:40 A.M., the petitioner asked her friend to tell prosecutrix to come outside the school gate and when prosecutrix alongwith her friend came there, the petitioner caught the prosecutrix from her neck and slapped her. Even, when teachers of the school came outside, the petitioner slapped the prosecutrix twice or thrice. Consequently, FIR No. 421/2021, dated 23.12.2021, under Sections 294, 354-D, 355, 506 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, came to be registered against the petitioner. On 25.12.2021 the petitioner surrendered himself and he was arrested accordingly. During interrogation the petitioner disclosed that he wants to maintain relation with the prosecutrix and he was afraid that when she will grow up, she will marry another guy and that is why, when she refused to talk to him, he slapped her. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as there is possibility that in case at this stage the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may repeat such offences again and may also threaten the prosecutrix.

4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report(s), carefully.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is 26 years of age and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that the petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has argued that keeping in view the material, which has come on record, and also the age of the petitioner, the bail application be allowed. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner is a drug addict and at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may repeat such offences again and may also threaten the prosecutrix. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed.

6. At this stage, considering the age of the petitioner, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have occurred, the fact that the petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the conditions of bail, if so granted. So, considering the ove

    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