Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 46
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Harish Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2975 of 2024
Decided On : 03-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Devender K. Sharma
For the Respondent: Ajit Sharma
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that the heinous nature of sexual offences against minors and the position of trust held by the accused justify the denial of bail, despite claims of a delayed trial.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 354A, 506, and 509 - Petition for regular bail - Petitioner, a teacher, accused of sexually assaulting minor girls and threatening them - No prima facie case established; delay in reporting not significant due to victims' age - Prosecution failed to examine witnesses despite opportunities - Right to speedy trial not violated as trial court is expeditiously listing the matter. (Paras 1 , 11 , 12 , 14 )
(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - Court must consider nature of accusations, gravity of offence, and potential for tampering with witnesses - The heinous nature of the crime and the position of trust held by the petitioner weigh against bail. (Paras 7 , 13 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for offences under IPC sections related to sexual assault of minors, with allegations of threats to victims. The FIR was registered after a year of the incident, and the petitioner has been in custody since June 2024.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petition for bail, emphasizing the gravity of the offences and the position of authority held by the petitioner over the victims.
Issues: The main issues included the nature of the accusations, the delay in reporting, and the right to a speedy trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the heinous nature of the crime and the petitioner's position of trust justified the denial of bail, despite the delay in reporting not being significant.
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 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354A, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) registered vide F.I.R. No. 104 of 2024, dated 20.06.2024, at Police Station Joginder Nagar, District Mandi. As per the prosecution’s case, the petitioner was posted as a teacher. He had sexually assaulted the child victims and threatened them not to disclose the incident to anyone. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police filed a charge sheet before the Court, and the matter is listed for the prosecution’s evidence. The petitioner is a Government Employee, and there is no chance of his absconding. He has been in custody since 20.06.2024. No prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner. The matter was reported to the police by the victims after about one year. The prosecution has not examined even a single witness despite being granted many opportunities. The petitioner would abide by all 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 police received a complaint regarding the indecent activities of the petitioner with the minor girls studying in his school. The police conducted an investigation and found that the petitioner had sexually assaulted many girls studying in the school. The police arrested the petitioner and filed the charge sheet before the Court. The matter was listed for consideration of charge on 01.02.2025, hence the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner has been behind the bars since June 2024. There has been no progress in the trial, and the right of speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated. Hence, 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 had sexually assaulted many girls. He was in a position of trust qua them, and he violated the trust reposed by his parents upon him. The offence committed by the petitioner is heinous and should not be viewed lightly. The petitioner can indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, 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 Ajwar v. Waseem, (2024) 10 SCC 768 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under at Page 783:-
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P.,(2004) 7 SCC 525 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan,(2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977; Masroor v. State of U.P.,(2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368; Prasanta K
