IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
Prakash @Tillu - Applicant
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
CrMP(M) No.134 of 2025
Decided On : 22-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 354C, 506 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Section 6 - Bail application - Applicant seeks bail during trial for alleged sexual offences against a minor relative. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Legal principles - The court emphasized that the balance between societal interest and individual liberty must be maintained in cases involving heinous offences against minors. (Paras 20-21)
(C) Findings of Court - The applicant's release on bail could lead to societal unrest and is not justified given the nature of the allegations and the evidence, including DNA results. (Paras 22-25)
(D) Issues - The court addressed the applicant's claim of false implication and the potential consequences of granting bail in a sensitive case involving a minor. (Paras 4, 26) (E) Ratio Decidendi - The court concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for bail, prioritizing community safety and the seriousness of the allegations. (Paras 26-27) (F) Result - Bail application dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), applicant-Prakash @Tillu has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.08 of 2024, dated 19.02.2024, registered under Sections 376, 354C and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’), with Police Station Sunni, District Shimla, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case, at the instance of the complainant.
3. As per applicant, he is in judicial custody for the last 11 months. According to him, he and victim are related to each other and are from same family. The accused, as well as, family of the child victim are also co- sharer in the property, which is jointly owned by both of them in the village.
4. It is the case of the applicant that in order to grab his share out of the said property, the present case has falsely been registered against him. According to him, he is the sole bread-earner of the family.
5. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2024.
6. Apart from this, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel 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, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 18.02.2024, SI Hem Raj, IO, Police Station Sadar, had gone to DDU, Zonal Hospital, Shimla, to verify the factual position, as mentioned in Rapat No.59 dated 18.02.2024. When, the said fact was verified, it was found that the crime, as reported in the said rapat, has taken place in the area of Police Station, Sunni, upon which, vide Rapat No.20 dated 18.02.2024, matter was informed to Incharge, Police Station Sunni. Subsequently, Incharge/SHO, Police Station Sunni, along with other police officials, reached DDUZH, Shimla, where, the mother of the child victim got recorded her statement, disclosing that she is resident of the address, as mentioned in the statement. She has studied up to Class V and does farming while staying at home.
9. According to the complainant, her husband expired about 10 years ago and in her family, her elder daughter is 26 years old, younger daughter is 24 years old, younger son is 22 years old, younger daughter is 20 years old and the youngest daughter is 17 years old (child victim). Out of the above children, one daughter is residing with her real sister from her childhood. Her elder daughter is working in a private sector at Shimla for the last two years. The child victim after passing 10+2 in the year 2023 had taken admission in ITI, (name withheld), in Stenography course. She had started residing with her elder sister.
10. It is the case of the complainant that on 18.02.2024, her elder daughter telephonically informed the complainant that the child victim is complaining of pain in her stomach, upon which, the complainant had suggested some home remedies, but, when, no relief was found, then, she had suggested her elder daughter to take her to hospital. When, she was checked by the doctor in DDUZH, Hospital, it was apprised that the child victim is carrying foetus. She had given birth to female child. After delivery, the condition of the child victim was also stated to be not good and she is not in a position to speak.
11. According to the complainant,
In cases involving sexual offences against minors, the court must prioritize societal safety over individual liberty when considering bail applications.
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 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 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 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.
Indefinite pre-trial custody is prohibited; bail may be granted with conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent witness tampering.
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 emphasized that pre-trial punishment is prohibited, and interim bail was granted with conditions to ensure compliance and safety of the complainant.
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....
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.