IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Ravi Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 765 of 2025
Decided On : 20-05-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 452, 376, and 506 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Section 4 - Bail application - Applicant seeks bail during trial for serious charges including rape - Investigation complete, charge-sheet filed, and material witnesses examined - Child victim and parents turned hostile, not supporting prosecution - Court emphasizes presumption of innocence and pre-trial punishment prohibition - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1, 11, 12, 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, accused of serious offenses including rape against a child, claims innocence and that the investigation is complete. The child victim and her parents have turned hostile, not supporting the prosecution's case.
Findings of Court:
The applicant has been in custody since arrest, and keeping him in custody during the lengthy trial would adversely affect his future. No other criminal history was mentioned, and the presumption of innocence remains.
Issues: The main issues include the credibility of the prosecution's case given the hostile witnesses and the appropriateness of bail given the nature of the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence of hostile witnesses does not negate the prosecution's case, but the applicant's continued custody is not justified given the circumstances and the presumption of innocence.
Result: Bail application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. Applicant-Ravi Kumar 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.10 of 2024, dated 08.03.2024, registered under Sections 452, 376 and 506 of the IndianPenal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’), with Police Station Pachhad, District Sirmaur, 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, investigation, in the present case, is complete and police has filed the charge-sheet, against him, in the competent Court of law.
4. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar bail applications, bearing CrMPs(M) No.1938 of 2024 and 51 of 2025, before this Court. However, the said applications were dismissed as withdrawn, vide orders dated 06.11.2024 and 09.01.2025, respectively.
5. The applicant has also highlighted the fact that the child victim, as well as, her parents, when appeared, before the learned trial Court, have not supported the case of the prosecution and all of them have turned hostile.
6. Apart from this, Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant, 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, 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 08.03.2024, the child victim, along with her parents, appeared before the police and moved the complaint, mentioning therein, that she is resident of the address, as mentioned in the complaint. On 08.03.2024, at about 01:00 in the noon, when, she was all alone at home, Ravi Kumar, S/o Prem Singh (applicant) came inside the room, locked the door and committed rape upon her and also threatened her to kill, in case, she discloses this fact to anyone.
8.1. On the basis of above facts, police registered the FIR in question and criminal machinery swung into motion.
8.2. Thereafter, the child victim was taken to Civil Hospital, Sarahan for her medico legal examination, but, no female doctor was available there. As such, she was taken to Dr. Y.S. Parmar Medical College, Nahan, District Sirmaur, where, her medico legal examination was conducted and the physical evidence, so collected by the doctor, was taken into possession. Statement of the child victim, under Section 161 of CrPC, was recorded.
8.3. On 09.03.2024, accused was searched for and thereafter, he was associated in the investigation and was arrested. He was also medico legally examined at Civil Hospital, Sarahan and the physical evidence, so collected by the doctor, was also taken into possession.
8.4. Thereafter, the spot was visited in the presence of the child victim and the physical evidence, from the room, where, the child victim was ravished by the applicant, was taken into possession.
8.5. On 11.03.2025, the child victim was produced, before the Court of learned JMFC, Rajgarh, where, her statement, under Section 164 of CrPC, was got recorded.
8.6. As per the documents, so collected, with regard to the date of birth of the child victim, her date of birth was found to be 24.05.2007.
8.7. After completion of the investigation, charge- sheet has been filed in the competent Court of law i.e.learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirmaur at Nahan, on 30.04.2024.
8.8. After receiving the DNA report, the supplementary challan was prepared and presented in the learned trial Court on 22.10.2024. The case is now stated to be listed on 13.06.2025 for prosecution evidence.
8.9. In view of the above, it has been pleaded that the a
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 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 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 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.
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 emphasized that pre-trial detention is prohibited under law, affirming the presumption of innocence and the need for a fair trial.
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.
The court granted bail to the applicant due to lack of direct evidence against him, emphasizing the importance of individual rights during trial.
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.