IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Amit - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. M.P.(M) No. 2767 of 2022
Decided On : 30-12-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366-A, 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4 - Grant of Bail – Rape - Petitioner has prayed for grant of bail on ground that he has been in custody for last more than two years – It has also been brought on record that after commission of offences in question, within a short span, he was involved in a case of theft at Delhi and was arrested there. [Para 7]
Finding of the Court: Victim was about 16 years of age at time of commission of offence, whereas, petitioner was aged about 28 years - Petitioner is stated to be already married - In such circumstances, petitioner cannot be said to have any plausible explanation for his conduct - Prosecution evidence is still in process of being recorded and in event of release of petitioner on bail at this stage, he may try to win-over and influence prosecution witnesses - It also cannot be disputed that petitioner has a right of speedy trial, however, it cannot be forgotten that conclusion of trial depends on many factors and sometimes such factors are beyond anybody’s control - Offence in this case was committed in July, 2020, whereafter, it was a period when every aspect of life was affected by COVID-19 pandemic - It’s after effects continued for quite a long period - In this view of matter, it cannot be said that trial has been unduly delayed.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Petitioner is an accused of commission of offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, “POCSO” Act), registered vide FIR No. 60 of 2020, dated 29.07.2020 at Police Station, Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P. He is facing trial before learned Special Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan.
2. The case was registered vide FIR No. 60 of 2020 on the complaint of the father of the victim. It was alleged that the victim was aged about 16 years and 2 months old, when the alleged offence was committed. Petitioner is accused of having taken the victim out of the guardianship of her parents without their consent for purposes of marrying her and had thereafter committed rape on her. As per allegations made in the complaint, on 29.07.2020, the petitioner had taken the victim from her native village via Delhi to Meerut to his house, where, as per victim, the rape was committed upon her. It is further alleged against petitioner that he was already married. The prosecution has already examined 11, out of the total 24 cited witnesses.
3. Petitioner has prayed for grant of bail on the ground that he has been in custody for the last more than two years. The trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Petitioner has, thus, raised the plea of violation of his right to life and personal liberty. As per petitioner, he is entitled for speedy trial, which right has been denied to him. Further, the petitioner has contended that he is innocent and has committed no offence.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file carefully.
5. Learned Special Judge has already framed charges against the petitioner, for commission of offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, after application of mind. The order so passed by learned Special Judge has remained un-assailed. In view of this, it will be too far-fetched to say that prima-facie material does not exist against the petitioner.
6. Petitioner undoubtedly is accused of a very serious and heinous offence. The victim was about 16 years of age at the time of commission of offence, whereas, the petitioner was aged about 28 years. Petitioner is stated to be already married. In such circumstances, petitioner cannot be said to have any plausible explanation for his conduct.
7. The offence, if proved against petitioner, may attract severe punishments against him. It has also been brought on record that after commission of offences in question, within a short span, he was involved in a case of theft at Delhi and was arrested there. The custody of petitioner was got transferred from Delhi by the Himachal Police for the purpose of investigation of FIR in question. Thus, the antecedents of petitioner are doubtful.
8. The concern of this Court at this stage is to secure fair and expeditious trial of the case. With doubtful antecedents of petitioner, it cannot be said that he will not affect the fair trial of the case after his release. The prosecution evidence is still in the process of being recorded and in the event of release of petitioner on bail at this stage, he may try to win-over and influence the prosecution witnesses. In view of aforesaid backdrop, it may also be difficult to secure the presence of the petitioner for early disposal of the trial.
9. No doubt, petitioner is in custody for about two years. It also cannot be disputed that petitioner has a right of speedy trial, however, it cannot be forgotten that the conclusion of trial depends on many factors and sometimes such factors are beyond anybody’s control. The offence in this case was committed in July, 2020, whereafter, it was a period when every aspect of life was affected by COVID-19 pandemic. It’s after effects continued for quite a long period. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the trial has been unduly delayed.
10. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts
Concern of this Court at this stage is to secure fair and expeditious trial of case.
Right of speedy trial is a valuable constitutional right.
Completion of fair and expeditious trial can be taken care of by putting petitioner to appropriate terms.
Investigation is already complete and petitioner cannot be ordered to be incarcerated for indefinite period - Trial of the case is likely to take considerable time before the conclusion.
Pre-trial incarceration cannot be applied as a matter of rule.
The right to speedy trial is a valuable right available to the accused, and delay in trial can be a factor in granting bail.
Point of Law : Appellant cannot take benefit from this admission of PW-7 for the simple reason that the injuries suffered by the victim on her breast could be caused by more than one reason and it wa....
The court affirmed conviction under the POCSO Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault based on corroborative medical evidence despite minor inconsistencies in the victim's testimony.
The court affirmed that intoxication negates consent in cases of sexual assault against minors, emphasizing the importance of corroborative evidence in establishing the accused's guilt.
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.