Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Abhay Singh @ Abbu - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 389 of 2025
Decided On : 03-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Arun Sehgal
For the Respondent: Ajit Sharma
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that the absence of corroborative medical evidence does not undermine the victim's testimony in cases of child sexual abuse, and the delay in reporting is not fatal to the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
(A) Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 64(2) and 351(3) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Petition for regular bail - Petitioner arrested for sexual abuse of a minor, with allegations of rape and threats - No medical evidence linking petitioner to crime; victim's statements inconsistent - Delay of two years in FIR not fatal - Court emphasizes the need for fair trial and potential influence on witnesses if released. (Paras 1 - 16 )
(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during investigation and trial, with conditions that facilitate justice and do not impede the investigation. (Paras 7 - 14 )
(C) Child Sexual Abuse - Disclosure process - Children may disclose abuse over time, and their statements should be treated with sensitivity, recognizing the complexities involved in their testimonies. (Paras 12 - 14 )
(D) The court found that the prosecution's case was not sufficiently undermined by the contradictions in the victim's statements or the absence of corroborative medical evidence. (Paras 10 - 12 )
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 147 of 2024, dated 24.9.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64(2) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), registered at Police Station Indora, District Kangra, H.P. As per the prosecution, the victim made a complaint regarding a sexual abuse. She became pregnant and had to abort the fetus twice. The police registered an FIR and arrested the petitioner. There is no medical evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. The victim stated in the FIR that she had aborted twice. She stated in her statement made to the police that no abortion had taken place. The material objects collected by the prosecution do not connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. The FIR was lodged after a delay of two years. The petitioner is aged 20 years. He belongs to a respectable family. He has been behind the bars since 24.9.2024. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim was studying in class 10th. The petitioner was sexually abusing the victim and threatening her. The victim had aborted twice. The police registered the FIR and conducted an investigation. It was found that the victim became unconscious on 24.9.2024 during the morning assembly. She was taken to the hospital, and she revealed to her teacher that the petitioner was sexually abusing her. The petitioner had raped the victim and threatened to kill her in case the incident was revealed to any person. The victim was born on 23.1.2010 and was minor on the date of the incident. The police seized the material objects and sent them to FSL. The report of FSL has been received. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court. The matter is listed for the statement of the victim on 24.4.2025. Hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Arun Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
4. Mr Arun Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is a delay of two years in reporting the matter to the police. There is a contradiction in the testimony of the victim recorded by the police and the FIR, which makes the prosecution case highly doubtful. The petitioner is a student, and his future would be ruined in case of his continued detention. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He had raped and impregnated the victim. The statement of the victim has not been recorded and the petitioner can influence her in case of release on bail. 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)(
