Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
Deepak Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 505 of 2025
Decided On : 04-04-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 366, 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Sections 6, 21 - Bail application filed by the applicant, accused of kidnapping and sexual assault, claiming false implication and asserting marriage with the child victim. The investigation is complete, and no useful purpose is served by continued judicial custody. (Paras 1, 16, 20)
(B) Bail - Conditions for granting bail - The court emphasized that bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment and must consider the completion of investigation and the absence of a need for custodial interrogation. (Paras 17, 21)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of enticing away a minor girl, resulting in her pregnancy. The child victim's mother did not lodge a complaint initially due to financial constraints. The applicant claims they are married and living together. (Paras 3, 4, 10.1)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant should be released on bail, considering the completed investigation and lack of necessity for further custody. (Paras 16, 20)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the applicant's claims of marriage and the implications of the victim's age in the context of the charges. (Paras 3, 10.6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution must stand on its own merits, and the applicant's claims cannot be considered at this stage. Bail cannot be denied as a punitive measure. (Paras 15, 17)
Result: Bail application allowed; the applicant is ordered to be released on bail. (Paras 20)
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 as the age of the child victim is concerned, the applicant has relied upon her statement, recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, before the learned JMFC.
6. The investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed, and according to the applicant, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him, in the judicial custody.
7. The applicant has also filed bail application, bearing No. 11 of 2025, before the learned Special Judge, Chamba, Division, Chamba, H.P., however, the same was dismissed, on 16.1.2025.
8. The applicant, through his counsel, has given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail.
9. On all these submissions, Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has prayed that the bail application may kindly be allowed.
10. When, put to notice, Police filed status report, disclosing therein that on 27.12.2024, on the basis of information received, lady ASI Sunita Kumari, alongwith other police officials, reached Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Chamba. In the labour room of the said hospital, mother of the child victim got recorded her statement, disclosing therein that she is residing at the address, as mentioned in the application. According to her, she is a home-maker, having four children, out of whom, two are boys and two are girls. The child victim is her youngest daughter, aged about 16 years.
10.1 According to her further statement, the child victim was enticed away by applicant Deepak Kumar, in the month of February, 2024. She has further stated in her complaint that the complainant, as well as, her husband, due to their weak financial condition, and in order to avoid social humiliation, had not lodged any complaint, regarding this fact. From the month of February, 2024, applicant Deepak Kumar kept their daughter, in his house.
10.2 She has further mentioned in the complaint that on 26.12.2024, mother of applicant Deepak Kumar informed the complainant regarding labour pain of the child victim and apprised them that they are bringing the child victim to the hospital. On 27.12.2024, in the morning, complainant, as well as, her husband, are stated to have reached Chamba, where, applicant Deepak Kumar and his mother took the child victim to hospital. Lastly, she has deposed that applicant Deepak Kumar enticed away the child victim and kept her in his house, without solemnizing marriage with her and ravished her. Resultantly, she got pregnant. As such, she has prayed that action be taken by the Police, upon which, the Police has registered the FIR against the applicant.
10. 3 During investigation, the child victim was produced before the Doctor, for medico legal examination, but, the child victim, who was in the custody of her mother, has refused to get herself
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.
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
