IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Devender Singh - Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. - Respondents
Cr.MP(M) No. 322 of 2025
Decided On : 21-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 75, 76, 351(2) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Section 12 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) - Bail application - Applicant sought bail after surrendering to custody, claiming innocence and alleging personal vendetta due to a land dispute - The FIR alleges inappropriate behavior towards a minor, with threats and caste-based remarks made by the applicant. (Paras 2-10)
(B) Bail considerations - The court noted that the investigation is complete and custodial interrogation is not required, emphasizing the applicant's permanent residency and availability for trial. (Paras 22-24)
(C) Conditions for bail - The court imposed conditions including joining the investigation when called, not leaving India without permission, and not influencing witnesses. (Paras 25-26)
Findings of Court:
The interim bail order was confirmed, allowing the applicant to remain free under specified conditions.
Issues: The main issues included the necessity of custodial interrogation and the applicant's availability for trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that since the investigation is complete and no custodial interrogation is needed, the applicant should not be remanded to custody.
Result: Interim order dated 24.02.2025 is made absolute.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant-Devender Singh has sought the relief of bail by surrendering himself to the custody of this Court.
2. Applicant has surrendered to the custody of this Court on 24.02.2025 and sought the relief of bail, during the pendency of the case, bearing FIR No.14 of 2025 dated 19.02.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in issue’), registered under Sections 75, 76, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to asthe ‘BNS’), Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’), and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC&ST Act’), with Police Station Renuka Ji, District Sirmaur, H.P.
3. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been named as accused, in the FIR in question.
4. As per applicant, FIR in question has been lodged by the complainant due to personal vendetta, as, there is land dispute between the applicant and the complainant.
5. Denying the entire allegations, as mentioned in the FIR, a prayer has been made to release the applicant on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
6. On the basis of above facts, the applicant has given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail.
7. When, the applicant had surrendered to the custody of this Court, on 24.02.2025, the State was directed to file status report.
8. In the status report, filed on 24.02.2025, it has been mentioned that the complainant (respondent No.2) has submitted a complaint to the police station, disclosing therein that the child victim is his daughter, aged about 17 years.
9. As per the complaint, made by the complainant, on 18.02.2025, his daughter had gone out to graze her goat, where, the applicant had misbehaved with her and done inappropriate act.
10. According to the further allegations of the complainant, the applicant, by giving allurement of the money to his daughter, had tried to do the forcible act with her. The clothes of the child victim were torn and the applicant had also threatened her that in case, she discloses this fact to anyone, he will finish her and also uttered that ‘you, being daughter of XXX (caste), are meant for this work’. He has also made caste-based aspersions, against the child victim.
11. Lastly, the complainant got recorded that the applicant has threatened him, as well as, his family members to finish them.
12. On the basis of above facts, complainant has prayed that the action be taken against the applicant.
13. Consequently, FIR, in issue, has been registered against the applicant. The child victim was medico legally examined at Civil Hospital (name withheld) and the doctor opined the injuries, found on the person of the child victim, as simple.
14. Thereafter, the Caste Certificates of the complainant, as well as, the applicant, were obtained. The documents, with regard to date of birth of the child victim, were also obtained, according to which, date of birth of the child victim is found to be 12.01.2008.
15. As per documents, collected by the Investigating Officer, the complainant and the child victim are from Scheduled Caste, whereas, the applicant is from General category.
16. According to the status report, it was found that on 18.02.2025, the child victim had gone out to graze her goats, where, the applicant had started doing inappropriate behaviour and by alluring her to pay Rs.100/-, she was asked to permit the applicant to commit wrong act and had made efforts to ravish her. When, the child victim tried to flee away from the spot, the applicant torn her shirt.
17. On notice, complainant has also put appearance and thereafter, the State was directed to file supplementary status report.
18. According to the supplementary status report, filed today, applicant has joined the investigation on 25.02.2025, 02.03.2025 and 19.03.2025 and as per status
The court ruled that bail should be granted when custodial interrogation is not required and the investigation is complete, emphasizing the applicant's availability for trial.
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 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 form of punishment; applicants must cooperate with the investigation and comply with specified conditions.
Bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment; applicants cooperating with the investigation are entitled to release.
Bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment; the necessity of custodial interrogation must be established for denial.
Bail applications cannot be dismissed as pre-trial punishment; applicants are presumed innocent until trial concludes.
The court confirmed interim bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and prohibiting pre-trial punishment, while imposing conditions to ensure the applicant's presence at trial.
The court ruled that the police did not establish a need for custodial interrogation, allowing the applicant's bail application under specific conditions.
Indefinite pre-trial custody is prohibited; bail may be granted with conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent witness tampering.
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.