Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Virender Singh - Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Cr.MP(M) No.583 of 2025
Decided On : 08-04-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code - Section 376(2) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Sections 4, 6, and 8 - Bail application - The applicant, accused of a heinous offence against a child, claimed innocence and sought bail, asserting it was his first offence. The court emphasized the need to balance societal interests with individual liberty, noting the serious nature of the allegations and the applicant's potential flight risk. (Paras 1, 16, 19)
(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail in serious offences - The court highlighted that releasing the applicant could send a wrong societal message regarding accountability for heinous crimes. (Paras 17, 19)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was accused of sexually assaulting a child victim, adopted by the complainant, who is the applicant's wife. The allegations included inappropriate touching and taking nude photographs of the child. The FIR was registered following the child's disclosure to the complainant. (Paras 1, 8.2, 15)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a case for bail, given the serious nature of the charges and the potential societal implications of granting bail. (Paras 19, 20)
Issues: The main issues included the seriousness of the allegations, the applicant's potential flight risk, and the societal implications of granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the gravity of the offence and the applicant's circumstances did not warrant bail, emphasizing the need to protect societal interests. (Paras 16, 19)
Result: Bail application dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Virender Singh, J.)
Applicant-Virender Singh has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), with a prayer to release him on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.61 of 2024, dated 19.05.2024, registered under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’), with Police Station Karsog, District Mandi, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case.
3. As per the applicant, he is a law-abiding citizen and had nothing to do with the alleged offence.
4. Highlighting the fact that the present is the first offence, which has been registered against him, it is the case of the applicant that he is not a habitual offender.
5. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was dismissed, vide order dated 28.12.2024.
6. Apart from this, Mr. Ram Kumar and Mr. Munish Dhatwalia, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant, have 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.
7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.
8. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 19.05.2024, complainant produced a complaint, before the police, mentioning therein that she is resident of the address, as mentioned in the complaint. The child victim, who is daughter of her sister, had been adopted by the complainant, as, her sister had solemnized marriage with someone else and no one was there to look after the child.
8.1. As per further contents of the complaint, in the year 2022, the child victim was adopted, as per law. The husband of the complainant is working at Mandi. According to the complainant, her husband has developed illicit relations with the child victim. The said relations were firstly made in the year 2020, then in 2021, 2022 and thereafter, on 15.05.2024 and 16.05.2024, when, the complainant had gone to Churag.
8.2. The child victim disclosed the said facts to the complainant on 18.05.2024, when, the complainant was teaching her about good and bad touch. Then, the child victim has disclosed to her that the applicant, to whom, she referred to as father (papa), used to touch her inappropriately and also used to remove her clothes and put his private part in her mouth. Whenever, the child victim tried to scream, her mouth was gagged by the applicant.
8.3. According to the child victim, such activity was also done, when, she was in Class VI and VII and has also disclosed that the applicant used to click her nude photographs. As such, it has been prayed that the action be taken against the applicant.
9. Consequently, police registered the FIR in question and criminal machinery swung into motion.
10. During investigation, clothes of the child victim, as well as, bed sheets, were taken into police possession.
11. Thereafter, the child victim was taken to Civil Hospital, Karsog, where, her medico legal examination was conducted. Subsequently, her statement, under Section 164 of CrPC, was got recorded by producing her, before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karsog. Subsequently, applicant was arrested on 20.05.2024 and was medico legally examined. Physical evidence, so collected by the doctor, was handed over to the police.
12. According to the police, the investigation, of the present case, is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, before the competent Court of law, on 25.07.2024. The case is now stated to be fixed on 03.04.2025 for prosecuti
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.
In cases involving sexual offences against minors, the court must prioritize societal safety over individual liberty when considering bail applications.
Indefinite pre-trial custody is prohibited; bail may be granted with conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent witness tampering.
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.
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 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 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....
Bail can be granted when investigation is complete, and the accused is not a habitual offender, provided conditions are imposed to ensure trial attendance and evidence integrity.
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
