Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 549

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Satya Prakash - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 385 of 2025
Decided On : 17-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Bail applications in serious offences require substantial change in circumstances since prior rejections, considering the nature of accusations and risk factors.

Headnote:
(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Section 8 - Bail application - Petitioner seeks bail after being arrested for allegedly inappropriately touching minors - Previous bail petition dismissed - Allegations include inappropriate touching of eleven minor girls - Court considers parameters for granting bail as established in various Supreme Court rulings. (Paras 7-20)

(B) Parameters for Bail - The court must assess the nature of accusations, gravity of the offence, criminal antecedents, and risk of tampering with witnesses before granting bail. (Paras 7, 8)

(C) Change of Circumstances - A subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a substantial change in circumstances since the prior rejection. (Paras 11-14)

(D) Trial Progress - The court finds no undue delay in the trial as statements of 18 witnesses have been recorded. (Paras 20, 21)

Findings of Court:
The petitioner cannot be released on bail as the nature of the allegations and his criminal history pose a risk to witnesses and the integrity of the trial.

Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioner should be granted bail given the serious nature of the allegations and his prior convictions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the serious nature of the accusations, combined with the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and the ongoing trial, justified the denial of bail.

Result: The present petition is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No. 22 of 2024, dated 19.06.2024, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act’). The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He had filed one bail petition bearing Cr.MPM No. 1805 of 2024, which was dismissed vide order dated 1.10.2024. The charge sheet has been filed before the Court. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant had received a complaint about the petitioner inappropriately touching three students. The informant gathered the rest of the girls and made inquiries from them. Eight other girls also disclosed that the petitioner had touched them inappropriately. They had not disclosed this incident to any person earlier due to shame. Their parents were called, and the matter was reported to the police. The police conducted the investigation and found that the petitioner had inappropriately touched eleven minor girls. The challan was prepared and presented before the Court on 20.8.2024. The petitioner is in judicial custody. His shop is near the school, and he would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of release on bail. The statements of PW1 to PW18 were recorded till 04.01.2025. Eight witnesses are yet to be examined. The matter is now listed on 13.04.2025 and 17.04.2025 for recording the statements of PW19 to PW23; hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

4. Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner had made complaints against the school authorities, and a false case was got registered against him to compel him to withdraw those complaints. The statements of most of the witnesses have been recorded, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner was earlier convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC in FIR No. 243/98. He had committed a heinous offence. He would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail; hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page 783: -

“Relevant parameters for granting bail

26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]