IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that bail in heinous offences against minors is not granted lightly, considering the nature of the crime and the right to a speedy trial.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 44 of 2023, dated 27.8.2023, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 A&B, Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and Section 3(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC&ST Act) at Women Police Station Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated. The investigation is complete. The custody of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

2. A status report has been filed by the State asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police, asserting that the victim’s mother was working as domestic help with her. She visited the informant’s house on 27.8.2023 at 11.00 AM with the victim. She wanted to convey something to the informant but could not convey as she was speech and hearing impaired. The informant inquired from the victim who replied that the petitioner had raped her 2-3 days ago. The petitioner paid ₹500/- to the victim after committing rape upon her. She also revealed that the petitioner had raped her on 2-3 occasions earlier. The matter was reported to the police, who registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police seized the material articles. The victim was found to be aged 9 years and 5 days on the date of the incident. She belongs to a scheduled tribe, whereas the accused is not a member of scheduled tribes. The result of the analysis was issued, in which it was mentioned that the semen detected on the underwear of the petitioner and the bed sheet matched the DNA of the petitioner. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 2.1.2024. The police have cited 33 witnesses., Nine witnesses have been examined, and 3 witnesses have been given up. The matter was listed on 7.4.2025 and 8.4.2025. The petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

3. I have heard Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He was arrested on 29.8.2023. He has been in custody for more than one and a half years. The trial is not progressing. The petitioner is entitled to bail because of a violation of his right to a speedy trial. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses, and three witnesses have been given up. The matter is now listed on 27.5.2025 and 28.5.2025. There is no delay in the progress of the trial. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: -

“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has