IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Shubham - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Another - Respondents
Cr.MP (M) No. : 787 of 2025
Decided on : 05-05-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 64 - Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Sections 4 and 6 - Bail application filed by the applicant during trial for alleged rape of a minor - The applicant claims innocence and asserts false implication. The child victim's testimony is inconsistent, and she has not contested the bail application. The court finds no criminal antecedents against the applicant and considers pre-trial detention as punitive. Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1 , 20 , 21 )
(B) Bail - Principles governing bail - The court emphasizes that the decision to grant bail should not be influenced by the merits of the case but rather on the likelihood of the applicant's presence during trial and the nature of the allegations. (Paras 15 , 18 )
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant-Shubham has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNS S ’), for releasing him on bail, during the pendency of trial, arising out of FIR No.112 of 2024, dated 22.11.2024, registered under Section 64 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ BNS ’) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’), with Police Station Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated and arrested by the Police, in this case.
3. The applicant has asserted the fact that the entire investigation of the Police is stated to be soiled with malice and with sole motive to implicate the applicant.
4. As per the applicant, the investigation, in the present case, is complete and except the present case, no other case is stated to have been registered against the applicant.
5. The applicant has also tried his luck by moving the bail application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Special Court (POCSO), Solan, however, his application was dismissed, vide order, dated 27th January, 2025.
6. The applicant has also pleaded that the child victim has not supported the case of the prosecution.
7. Apart from this, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to release the applicant on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
9. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 22nd November, 2024, from police booth IGMC, a telephonic information was received by Police Post Chail, that the child victim has been referred to IGMC, Shimla from Regional Hospital, Solan, as, she had consumed the poisonous substance.
9.1. During treatment, it was found that the child victim is pregnant, as such, a prayer was made to take action, upon which, ASI Jai Prakash, along with other police officials, reached IGMC Shimla. The child victim was found to be admitted in Children Ward PICU, IGMC, Shimla.
9.2. After obtaining the medical opinion from the doctor, the statement of the child victim was recorded in which, she has disclosed that she is resident of the address, as mentioned in the complaint and studied upto 9th Class, in GSSS ‘X’. She has also stated that her age is about 17 years and her date of birth is 31.07.2007. From the last two years, she has not attended the school and she along with her parents is residing at place ‘X’ in a temporary shed.
9.3. According to the child victim, prior to this, the entire family used to reside at the house of Vikas Thakur for 6-7 years. During that period, she came in contact with applicant Shubham. Applicant had given an offer to the child victim to marry her and on the pretext of marriage, he had raped her on 2-3 occasions, however, she could not remember the exact date and month of the said incident.
9.4. Thereafter, when the father of the child victim has shifted his residence, then, again, Shubham came there and in the month of October, 2024, raped her on the pretext of marriage. On 20.11.2024, the child victim called applicant Shubham about the reason for not talking to her, upon which, the applicant told her that he does not want to have any relations with her nor he will talk to her. Due to this fact, the child victim consumed half glass of phenyl. Thereafter, she was brought to Hospital, She has alleged that the accused had raped her on the pretext of marriage and due to this fact, she got pregnant.
9.5. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to the police, to take action, upon which, the police has registered the FIR and the criminal machinery swu
The court granted bail based on the applicant's lack of criminal history, the victim's inconsistent testimony, and the principle against pre-trial punishment.
The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and ruled that pre-trial punishment is prohibited, allowing bail due to the lack of supportive evidence from the victim and her parents.
The presumption of innocence mandates that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment before trial, and specific conditions can be imposed to ensure compliance.
Indefinite pre-trial custody is prohibited; bail may be granted with conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent witness tampering.
The court emphasized that bail cannot be granted in serious offenses under POCSO without compelling evidence, affirming the trial court's exclusive role in evaluating guilt.
The court emphasized that in serious offences, bail should be denied to prevent potential witness tampering and to uphold societal norms, particularly when prima facie guilt is established.
Bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment; the necessity of custodial interrogation must be established for denial.
The court denied bail due to the serious nature of the allegations against the applicant, emphasizing the need to protect societal interests and the potential flight risk of the accused.
The court ruled that the police did not establish a need for custodial interrogation, allowing the applicant's bail application under specific conditions.
The presumption of innocence prohibits pre-trial punishment, and bail may be granted with conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation.
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.