Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
Surender - Applicant
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
CrMP (M) No. : 216 of 2025
Decided On : 22-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 366, 366A, 376, 120B - Bail application filed by applicant apprehending arrest in a serious criminal matter involving the enticement and alleged marriage of a minor - Applicant claims innocence and argues that he is falsely implicated due to a conspiracy - The investigation is complete, and custodial interrogation is not necessary - Previous bail applications were dismissed due to the heinous nature of the offences and the applicant's absconding status - The court found that the applicant poses a flight risk and could coerce witnesses if granted bail. (Paras 1-34)
(B) Bail - Principles governing bail in serious offences - The court emphasized that the severity of the charges and the possibility of the applicant evading trial outweigh the arguments for bail, especially given the nature of the allegations involving a minor. (Paras 28-34)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of serious offences against a minor, including abduction and rape, with specific allegations of involvement in the marriage of the victim. The victim was 16 years old at the time of the incident, and the applicant has remained absconding since the FIR was registered.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant has not made a case for bail, considering the serious nature of the allegations and the risk of him evading trial.
Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant could be granted bail despite the serious nature of the charges and his status as an absconder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's flight risk and the severity of the allegations against him justified the denial of bail, emphasizing the need to maintain societal order and protect victims.
Result: Bail application dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant-Surender, apprehending his arrest, has filed the present bail application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 184 of 2022, dated 19th October, 2022, registered under Sections 363, 366, 366A, 376, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), with Police Station Rohru, District Shimla.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated in the present case.
3. As per the applicant, the case has been lodged against him with a view to harass him and the same is outcome of pre-planned conspiracy. The applicant has further pleaded that he is in his sixties and most of the time remained ill from the age-related complications. According to the applicant, from the last 2 years, he is confined to bed.
4. According to the applicant, investigation in the present case is complete and nothing is to be recovered from him or at his instance. Custodial interrogation is also stated to be not required by the Police.
5. Apart from this, it has also been pleaded that the main accused and other co-accused have already been released on bail, by this Court, vide order dated 09.07.2024, passed in Cr.MP(M) No.1235 of 2024.
6. The applicant has given certain undertaking, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the police/Investigating Officer, under Section 482 of the BNSS.
7. The applicant had also tried his luck, by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (Rape/POCSO), Shimla, which was dismissed on 6.5.2024. Thereafter, he had filed Cr.MP (M) No.2476 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 3.12.2024.
8. Along with the application, the applicant has annexed the copy of order dated 03.12.2024, passed by this Court in Cr.MP (M) No.2476 of 2024, and copy of order dated 6.5.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (Rape/POCSO), Shimla.
9. Thereafter, the applicant has moved Cr.MP No.612 of 2025, for placing on record copy of order dated 6.5.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (Rape/POCSO), Shimla, whereby the application, moved by the applicant, was dismissed, copy of order dated 25.4.2023, passed by this Court, in Cr.MP(M) No.1002 of 2023, whereby, the application, filed under Section 483 Cr.PC, has been dismissed as withdrawn, copy of order dated 1.6.2023, passed by this Court, in Cr.MP(M) No.1269 of 2023, by virtue of which, the bail application was dismissed as withdrawn, copy of order dated 3.10.2024, passed by this Court in Cr.MP No.2210 of 2024, whereby, the bail application was also dismissed as withdrawn, copy of order dated 9.7.2024, passed by this Court in Cr.MP(M) Nos.1235 & 1513 of 2024, whereby, the co-accused of the applicant have been ordered to be released on bail, and copy of zimini orders of different dates, passed in the trial, pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (Rape/POCSO), Shimla.
10. When put to notice, the police filed the status report that on 19.12.2022, the complainant has submitted a complaint before the Police disclosing therein that his daughter (child victim) is studying in 10+1 class in Government Senior Secondary School, (ABC). On 18.10.2022, the daughter of the complainant had gone to her school, but, she did not return back. Her whereabouts were enquired from the niece of the complainant, upon which, it was apprised by her that the child victim had not gone to school. Thereafter, efforts were made to trace in the house of the relatives, but the could not find her out. Thereafter, he has expressed his suspicion that some unknown person has enticed away his daughter.
11 On the basis of the above facts, the police has registered the FIR, in question and the po
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.
Indefinite pre-trial custody is prohibited; bail may be granted with conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent witness tampering.
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 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 granted bail based on the applicant's lack of criminal history, the victim's inconsistent testimony, and the principle against pre-trial punishment.
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 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 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 bail should not be denied as a form of punishment, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty.
The absence of direct evidence against the applicant and the completion of the investigation justified the grant of bail, emphasizing the principle of parity with co-accused.
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
