IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Manpreet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 3139 of 2023
Decided on : 20-12-2023
Rape - Bail Application - 107, 151 of Cr.P.C. - 376 of IPC - 114-A of Indian Evidence Act - 107, 151 of Cr.P.C. - 376 of IPC - 114-A of Indian Evidence Act
Fact of the Case:
The victim alleged that the petitioner and another accused had sexually assaulted her, prepared obscene videos and photographs, and blackmailed her. The petitioner sought bail, denying involvement and citing lack of incriminating evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the victim's statement, the presumption of absence of consent under Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, and the delay in reporting the incident. It rejected the petitioner's arguments, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the need for custodial interrogation.
Issues: Alleged sexual assault, preparation of obscene material, blackmail, delay in reporting the incident, and the petitioner's involvement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the presumption of absence of consent under Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, the seriousness of sexual assault allegations, and the need for custodial interrogation in such cases.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the need for custodial interrogation in cases of sexual assault.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The victim made a complaint to the police stating that she was in touch with accused no. 1-Raman Singh. He called her on 16.4.2019 at Café 69, Sector-7, Kurukshetra. Thereafter, he called her to various other places and he started proclaiming that he wanted to marry her. The petitioner and Raman came to Kangra on 16.2.2020. They took her to a hotel where accused no. 1 entered into sexual relations with the victim without her consent. The accused no. 2, the present petitioner, prepared the obscene videos and took obscene photographs of the victim. The accused no. 1 started blackmailing the victim by saying that he would make the photographs and videos viral. He started calling the victim to his house. He maintained sexual relations with the victim at Kurukshetra in different hotels and in the house of accused no. 2-present petitioner at Mohali and Manimajra. Accused No.1 also took money from the victim on the threat of making the video and photographs viral. On 2.9.2023, accused no.1 called the victim to the house of accused no.2 (the present petitioner) at Manimajra, where both of the accused maintained sexual relations with her by administering some intoxicant to her. The victim narrated the incident to her parents. The matter was reported to the police. The police registered zero FIR which was subsequently transferred to Police Station Kangra, where the present FIR was lodged.
2. The petitioner filed the present petition seeking bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was never involved in the commission of any offence and he has no criminal antecedents. He has no relationship with the victim in any manner. He is the brother-in-law of the main accused Raman Singh. The victim had friendly relations with Raman Singh since 2019. The mother of the main accused discovered that the victim had visited the house of Raman at Manimajra, to which she objected and told the victim that her (victim’s) visit was against the moral values of her (mother of the accused no. 1’s) family. She asked them to get married. The petitioner was not present in the house of Raman Singh on 2.9.2023 and he was present at Kurukshetra. The parents of the victim threatened the mother of accused no. 2 with dire consequences. The victim concocted a false story implicating the petitioner and the accused no. 1 by making false allegations of rape and preparing her obscene videos and taking her obscene pictures. The victim and her family members threatened the accused no. 1 on 11.102023 and snatched the electronic devices. They gave beatings to accused no. 1 and his mother. Accused no. 1 called the petitioner. The petitioner went to the workshop and contacted the accused No.1 and his mother. A complaint under Sections 107 and 151 of Cr.P.C. was registered at Police Station IT Park, Chandigarh. There was no mention of the sexual assault in this complaint. The accused no. 1 married on 15/16th October 2023. The victim lodged the zero FIR thereafter. The petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family. The victim is aged 21 years. The prosecution story is false and no case is made out against the petitioner. The FIR was lodged after the lapse of two years. No incriminating material is available with the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
3. A status report was filed reproducing the contents of the FIR. It was asserted that the statement of the victim was recorded in the Court of Learned ACJM, Kangra. The victim identified the room in the hotel and on verification of the record; the names of the victim and the accused were found in the register of the hotel. These entries were seized. The police arrested the main accused Raman Singh on 30.10.2023 and seized his laptop. The mobile phones of Raman Singh and the victim were sent to RFSL to retrieve the data contained therein.
Satyapal v. State of Haryana (2009) 6 SCC 635: AIR 2009 SC 2190
Anurag Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh
Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. (1995) 5 SCC 518: AIR 1995 SC 2472
Naim Ahamed vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (9) SCC 24
State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384: AIR 1996 SC 1393
State of Maharashtra v. Savala Sagu 1997 CrLJ 786
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh (2009) 1 SCC 420: AIR 2009 SC 1010
State Versus Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187
State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao (2008) 15 SCC 582
Pre-arrest bail is a privilege, not a right, and must be granted only in exceptional circumstances, considering the gravity of accusations.
The court quashed the charge sheet due to lack of corroborative evidence and substantial credibility concerns surrounding the victim's testimony, questioning the validity of consent obtained under co....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of various factors and parameters for granting anticipatory bail, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the anteced....
The court emphasized that bail should be denied in serious offences like rape, highlighting the severity of the charge, nature of evidence, and potential for witness tampering as critical considerati....
The court emphasized that bail should be granted based on the credibility of allegations and the necessity to prevent witness tampering, establishing stringent conditions for the accused.
Bail denied in heinous POCSO offence involving minor rape due to prima facie case, accused's absconding history risking flight, and no undue trial delay despite charge-sheet and witness examination.
The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering the totality of facts and circumstances, including the delay in filing the FIR, inconsistencies in the victim's allegations, and the pet....
The main legal point established is the need to carefully examine the nature of the relationship, the genuineness of the prosecution, and the balance between the rights of the accused and the interes....
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.