IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
Jad Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 632 of 2025
Decided On : 04-04-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 65(1), 351(3) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Bail application - Applicant, aged 85, claims false implication and lack of evidence - Delay in FIR of 17 days highlighted - Investigation complete, charge sheet filed - Court considers age and presumption of innocence - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1, 16, 17)
(B) Bail - Principles governing bail - Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail cannot be denied as a punitive measure - Conditions can be imposed to mitigate risks associated with release. (Paras 15, 17)
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. Applicant–Jad Ram, has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), with a prayer to release him on bail, during the pendency of trial, in case FIR No.1 of 2025, dated 02.01.2025, registered, under Sections 65(1), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’) with Police Station Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated and arrested, in the present case.
3. As per the applicant, he is 85 years of age and is suffering from age related problems. Complainant is stated to be son of the applicant from his second wife and he is pressurizing the applicant to transfer his entire land holding, in his favour, to the exclusion of his five daughters, whereas, the applicant has already given separate parcel of the land to the complainant.
4. Apart from this, the delay of 17 days in lodging the FIR has also been highlighted by the applicant, as a fact to demonstrate that he has falsely been implicated, in this case.
5. According to the applicant, investigation in this case is complete. Even, in the investigation, no incriminating evidence has been found against him.
6. The applicant has also tried his luck, by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Shimla, however, the said application was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.01.2025. Thereafter, he has again filed application, which was dismissed on 11.03.2025.
7. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, 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.
8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.
9. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, on 02.01.2025, the complainant has made a statement, under Section 173 of BNSS, mentioning therein that he was married about 19 years ago. He has been blessed with two daughters and one son. The child victim is his elder daughter, aged about 15 years 11 months. His father Jad Ram (applicant), is residing in a separate accommodation, which is above the house of the complainant.
9.1. On 15.12.2024, as per the version of the complainant, his father Jad Ram (applicant), disclosed to him that he was not feeling well, as such, he had asked the complainant to send the child victim to his house to prepare meal for him. Consequently, the child victim was sent to the house of the applicant.
9.2. According to the complainant, when, she returned back after preparing meal, the child victim was found to be frightened and she went to sleep. Thereafter, she started remaining silent. On 2.1.2025, the child victim disclosed to the complainant that on 15.12.2024, when she had gone to the house of applicant for preparing meal for him, then at about 8.15 p.m., after preparing meal, Jad Ram (applicant) took her to room, where, she had been raped by the accused and also threatened her to kill, in case, she will disclose this fact to anyone. Due to his fear, the child victim has not disclosed this fact to anyone.
9.2. As such, the complainant has prayed to take action against the applicant.
9.3. Upon this, the police registered the case and child victim was medico legally examined at CHC Sandasu.
9.4. The physical evidence, so collected, was taken into possession. The child victim was produced before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Theog, where her statement under Section 183 BNSS, was recorded.
9.5. Thereafter, the police had searched for the accused (applicant), but, he could not be found. On 4.1.2025, a secret information was received regarding the presence of the accused
Bail cannot be denied as a punitive measure; conditions can be imposed to mitigate risks associated with release, especially for senior citizens.
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 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 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 ruled that the applicant's possession of a non-commercial quantity of narcotics allows for bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the prohibition of pre-trial punishment.
In cases involving sexual offences against minors, the court must prioritize societal safety over individual liberty when considering bail applications.
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 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....
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.