IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Hem Kumar Sharma, Son Of Late Sh. Hari Ballabh – Appellant
Versus
State Of H.P. - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) No. 1279 of 2022
Decided on : 01-08-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354-A, 354, 376(3), 376(2)F - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 6 and 10 - Crime against women and Children - Offence of sexual harassment and Rape – Seeking anticipatory bail - Prosecution case is that an e-mail bearing rapat in Daily Diary was received in Police Station, informing that one Devinder Kumar had submitted a complaint about teasing school girls by DPE, posted in Government Girls School, during training of Yoga, stating therein that complainant was a wholesale businessman and his daughter, studying in 9th Class, after returning from School, told her mother that since so many days, their DPE sir, in School used to tease her and other 9 girls students during Yoga learning. Complainant alongwith parents of other girls met Principal of School in his office, who assured Departmental inquiry on issue - Court opinion that it is not a case where ex-facie no case is made out at all against petitioner. For material placed before Court, it cannot be said to be totally false on face of it. Therefore, in present case accusation cannot be said to have been made with object to injuring or humiliating petitioner by having him so arrested without any cause. Investigation in present case is going on. (Para 24)
Finding of the court: Nature and gravity of offence, extent of involvement of petitioners, manner of commission of offence, antecedents of petitioners, possibility of petitioners fleeing from justice and impact of granting or rejecting the bail on society as well as petitioner, are also amongst those several relevant factors which may compel the Court to reject or accept the bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. - in present case accusation cannot be said to have been made with object to injuring or humiliating the petitioner by having him so arrested without any cause. Investigation in present case is going on.
Result: Petition dismissed
ORDER :
Petitioner has approached this Court, invoking provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 98 of 2022, dated 10.6.2022, registered in Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. under Sections 354-A, 354, 376(3), 376(2)F of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 6 and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’).
2. Status Report stands filed. Record was also made available.
3. Petitioner has also placed a certificate on record, whereby he has been given State Level Teachers Award-2020 for doing extra-ordinary work for characteristic, physical and cultural development of students. A Pen Drive has also been placed on record, allegedly having conversation of someone on behalf of complainant with relative of the petitioner making offer for amicable settlement.
4. Prosecution case is that on 10.6.2022 an e-mail bearing rapat No. 15 in Daily Diary dated 10.6.2022 was received in the Police Station, Dharampur from Police Chowki Subathu, informing that one Devinder Kumar had submitted a complaint about teasing the school girls by DPE, posted in Government Girls School, Subathu, during training of Yoga, stating therein that complainant was a wholesale businessman and his daughter, studying in 9th Class, on 9.6.2022, after returning from the School, told her mother that since so many days, their DPE sir, in the School used to tease her and other 9 girls students during Yoga learning. The complainant’s wife disclosed it to him. Thereafter complainant alongwith parents of other girls met Principal of School in his office, who assured Departmental inquiry on the issue. All girls were stated to be under stress and fear due to inappropriate conduct of DPE as he, with ulterior motive and ill-intention, had been touching body parts of girls while instructing Yoga.
5. On the basis of aforesaid complaint and inquiry, FIR under Section 354-A of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act was registered. Thereafter statements of victims were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and they were medically examined in CHC Dharampur. From the statements of victims it transpired that petitioner, on the pretext of improving the postures and stretching, used to touch their private parts and insert his figure in private part and petitioner used to wear a torn lower without wearing underwear, exposing his private part to girls. Torn lower has been recovered from the Almirah kept in sports room of the school.
6. During investigation written complaints submitted by victim girls to Sexual Harassment Committee and a communication sent by one victim girl to her elder sister, were taken into possession and statements of victim girls were also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. As per certificates of victims, all victims are of less than 16 years of age. On the basis of statements of victims, Sections 354, 376(3), 376(F) of IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of POCSO Act, attracted in the case, were also incorporated and Section 8 of POCSO Act was omitted.
7. In the communication sent by one victim to her elder sister, victim wrote that ‘didi sir was too mean as he put his hand on her lower private part and thereafter asked that she was feeling good by saying that when it would be in heat, then she would enjoy it and for that reason she was resisting direction of her mother to attend Yoga classes.’
8. In the complaints submitted to the Principal, it has been stated by victims that they used to attend Yoga classes on call of petitioner and during classes of Yoga, sir used to touch their private parts. Petitioner used to lay down the girls on the table on the pretext of improving flexibility of body by stretching and used to touch their body inappropriately, and touch of body parts of petitioner without undergarments was very embarrassing for them and he used to ensure touching of his stomach with the girls and because of this sometimes they missed the Yoga class but next day pet
Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B.
Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and another
Dr. Jaseer Aboobackr Vs. State of Kerala
D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran
Directorate of Enforcement v. Hassan Ali Khan
Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Fekan Yadav v. Satendr Yadav alias Boss Yadav alias Satendra Kumar and others
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & others v. State of Punjab
Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar
Mangal Singh Negi v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Prem Giri v. State of Rajasthan
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement
Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan and others
Prem Giri v. State of Rajasthan
State of M.P. and another v. Ram Kishna Balothia
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others
Sushila Aggarwal & others v. State (NCT of Delhi) & another
Savitri Agarwal and others v. State of Maharashtra and another
State of M.P. & another v. Ram Kishna Balothia & another
Sudhir v. State of Maharashtra
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.