Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Jagdish Kumar @ Jaggu - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 812 of 2025
Decided On : 20-05-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Sections 74, 126(2) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Sections 8 and 12 - Bail application filed by the applicant, asserting false implication and young age as grounds for release - Investigation completed, charge-sheet filed, and trial pending - Court found no useful purpose in keeping the applicant in custody, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the indefinite nature of custody - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1, 16, 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was arrested under serious charges involving a child victim, aged 13, who alleged sexual harassment. The investigation was completed, and the charge-sheet was filed, with the case set for trial. (Paras 1, 3, 14)
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the applicant should not be kept in custody indefinitely, considering the presumption of innocence and the lack of other cases against him. (Paras 17, 18)
Issues: The main issues included the justification for the applicant's continued custody and the implications of pre-trial punishment. (Paras 21, 22)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that indefinite custody without trial is prohibited, and reasonable conditions could mitigate concerns about the applicant's release. (Paras 21, 22)
Result: Bail application allowed, with conditions imposed for the applicant's release.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. Applicant-Jagdish Kumar @ Jaggu, 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 the trial, arising out of FIR No.101 of 2024, dated 13.12.2024, registered under Sections 74, 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’) and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act), with Police Station Kasauli, District Solan, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he has falsely been implicated and arrested, in the present case.
3. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to have been completed and the police has filed the charge- sheet and cognizance has been taken by the competent Court of law. The case is now stated to have been fixed for PWs.
4. Asserting the fact that the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged offences, for which he has been arrested, young age of the applicant has also been putforth, as one of the grounds for releasing him on bail.
5. The applicant had also tried his luck, by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Solan, which was dismissed on 21.02.2025.
6. The applicant, has given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
7. When put to notice, the police filed the status report that on 13.12.2024, the complainant appeared before Police Post Kuthar and moved a complaint, mentioning therein, that the child victim, aged about 13 years, is his daughter and studying in 7th Class in School ‘X’. According to the complainant, she had been sexually harassed by Jagdish Kumar @Jaggu (applicant) and he had also used inappropriate language against her. He has further got recorded that he was away from his home and when came back, the child victim, as well as, his wife disclosed this to him.
8. On the basis of the above facts, FIR in question was registered and the criminal machinery swung into motion.
9. On 14.12.2024, the child victim was produced before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, where her statement under Section 183 of BNS was recorded. Thereafter, the child victim identified the spot and spot map was prepared. Statements of the witnesses, under Section 180 BNS, were also recorded.
10. On 15.12.2024, at about 2.40 p.m., the accused (applicant) was arrested and he was medico-legally examined by the Doctor at CHC, Chandi. On 16.12.2024, he was produced before the Court, from where, he was remanded to the judicial custody. Thereafter, the I.O., on 17.12.2024, has made a correspondence with the Principal of the School, where the child victim was studying, with regard to the date of birth certificate and report of Anti Sexual Harassment Committee.
11. Thereafter, the members of the Committee were associated in the investigation and their statements were recorded. The documents, pertaining to the date of birth of the child victim, were procured, according to which, her age was found to be 12 years, 1 month and 22 days, on the day of alleged occurrence. Accused (applicant) is found to be the resident of village of the child victim.
12. It has also been transpired in the investigation that on 13.12.2024, at about 8.40 a.m., the child victim, along with her brother, was on her way to school on the Scooty of her uncle, however, on the way the tyre of the Scooty got punctured. Consequently, the child victim and her brother proceeded towards the school on foot, where the accused (applicant) met her, who directed her brother to move ahead.
13. Thereafter, the accused had stopped the child victim on the allurement of giving ten rupees to her and thereafter, he has started doing obscene acts with her and also directed the child victim to hold his priva
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 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 emphasized that pre-trial detention is prohibited under law, affirming the presumption of innocence and the need for a fair trial.
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 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 to the applicant due to lack of direct evidence against him, emphasizing the importance of individual rights during trial.
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.
The court emphasized that pre-trial punishment is prohibited, and interim bail was granted with conditions to ensure compliance and safety of the complainant.
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
