Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J
Dharam Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant Dharam Singh has filed the present application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.’), for releasing him on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.10 of 2024, dated 22.03.2024, registered with Women Police Station, Una, District Una, H.P., under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), and Section 4 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences, (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’,).
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case. According to him, the investigation, in the present case is complete.
3. The police is stated to have submitted the charge sheet, upon which, the competent Court of law has taken the cognizance, charges have been framed and the case has been listed for PWs and child victim has been examined.
4. Highlighting the statement of the child victim, which she had made before the Court of learned Special Judge, Una, it has been prayed that the statement of the child victim does not inspire confidence.
5. Relying upon the medical report of the child victim, as well as
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 based on the applicant's lack of criminal history, the victim's inconsistent testimony, and the principle against pre-trial punishment.
The court emphasized that in serious offences, bail should be denied to prevent potential witness tampering and to uphold societal norms, particularly when prima facie guilt is established.
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 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 presumption of innocence prohibits pre-trial punishment, and bail may be granted with conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation.
Bail cannot be denied as a punitive measure; the prosecution must establish its case independently, and the completion of investigation warrants release.
The court ruled that the police did not establish a need for custodial interrogation, allowing the applicant's bail application under specific conditions.
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
