Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mr. Justice Virender Singh, J
Deepak Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. The applicant has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.’) in case FIR No. 66 of 2024, dated 27.12.2024, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Sections 6 and 21 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’) registered with Women Police Station, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he has been falsely implicated in the present case, as nothing has been found in the investigation, connecting him, with the alleged crime.
3. According to the applicant, he and the complainant belong to tribal community, and as per the custom, prevailed in their community, they entered into wedlock, with the consent of their parents, and living together peacefully.
4. According to the applicant, there has been no complaint qua missing of the child victim. This fact has been pleaded to show that the parties are happily living together, after marriage.
5. It is the further case of the applicant that the child victim is living with him, as his wife. So far
Bail cannot be denied as a punitive measure; the prosecution must establish its case independently, and the completion of investigation warrants release.
The court emphasized that pre-trial detention is prohibited as punishment, allowing bail based on the slow pace of the trial and change in circumstances while ensuring societal protection through str....
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 presumption of innocence prohibits pre-trial punishment, and bail may be granted with conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation.
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 mandates that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment before trial, and specific conditions can be imposed to ensure compliance.
The court denied bail based on the severity of charges against the applicant, his status as an absconder, and the potential risk of witness coercion.
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.
Bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment; the necessity of custodial interrogation must be established for denial.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
