IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
Vicky - Applicant
Vs.
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.513 of 2025
Decided On : 22-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 64 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Bail application - Applicant seeks bail in a case involving serious allegations of sexual offences against a child victim, who later passed away - The court noted that the prosecution's case relies heavily on the DNA report, which indicates the applicant's biological connection to the foetus carried by the child victim - The court emphasized the need to uphold societal norms and protect the integrity of the judicial process - The application for bail was dismissed due to concerns over potential witness coercion and the gravity of the allegations. (Paras 1-16)
(B) Bail - Principles governing bail applications - The court must consider the evidence and potential risks posed by the applicant if released on bail, particularly in serious offences - The prerogative of the trial court to assess evidence must be respected. (Paras 12-15)
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant-Vicky has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS S ’), for releasing him on bail, in case FIR No.81 of 2024, dated 13.10.2024, registered under Sections 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act’), with Police Station, Anni, District Kullu, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, the case of the prosecution is false and he is innocent person. In order to buttress his contentions, the applicant has pleaded that the child victim had never made any such allegations, during her life time, as applicant has also accompanied the child victim alongwith his father for her treatment.
3. It is the further case of the applicant that the marriage of the child victim with the applicant was likely to take place in near future, but prior to that she had expired due to respiratory problems. It is also the case of the applicant that the police and doctor forced the father of the child victim to report the matter.
4. According to the applicant, the case of the prosecution is too fragile and could not sustain the judicial scrutiny by the Court.
5. On the basis of the above facts, Shri Manoj Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has argued that the investigation in the present case is complete and the competent Court of law has taken the cognizance and the evidence of the father of the child victim has been recorded, who also even not supported the case of the prosecution. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has placed on record the copy of the statement recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (Rape/POCSO), Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr on 22.02.2025. All these facts have been pleaded to seek the relief, as claimed, in the application.
6. The applicant, has given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail.
7. Applicant had also tried his luck by moving the similar application before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, HP, however, the said application was dismissed, vide order dated 23.01.2025.
8. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, mentioning therein that the complainant got recorded his statement before the police disclosing therein that he is an agriculturists by profession. He was married about 23-24 years ago. He has been blessed with five children, four are girls and one is son. The child victim is his second daughter, who, according to him, is suffering from respiratory disease. The child victim came in contact with the applicant during fair at Anni. Thereafter, both of them have started meeting with each other and sometime applicant also came to their house. Two-three days prior to the date, when, he made the statement to the police, according to him, the respiratory disease of the child victim was aggravated, as such, she was taken to Anni hospital. The applicant, who came to their home four-five days prior to the said incident also accompanied him from Anni hospital and child victim was referred to Rampur, where, she remained admitted for three days and thereafter for further treatment, she was referred to IGMC Shimla.
8.1. On 12.10.2024, the complainant alongwith Vicky (accused), brought child victim to IGMC Shimla, where she was treated and certain tests were conducted. During her admission, the child victim disclosed that she is carrying the foetus of five months and he has named (accused) Vicky, as the person being source of the said foetus. During the treatment, child victim had expired.
8.2. Lastly, the complainant got recorded that the applicant in the month of May, 2024, forcibly developed illegal relations with the child victim, due to which, she w
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 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 bail cannot be granted in serious offenses under POCSO without compelling evidence, affirming the trial court's exclusive role in evaluating guilt.
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.
In cases involving sexual offences against minors, the court must prioritize societal safety over individual liberty when considering bail applications.
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.
Indefinite pre-trial custody is prohibited; bail may be granted with conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent witness tampering.
Bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment; the necessity of custodial interrogation must be established for denial.
Bail cannot be denied as a punitive measure; the prosecution must establish its case independently, and the completion of investigation warrants release.
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.
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.