SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(J&K) 474

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Badri Nath - Appellants
Vs.
Union Territory of J&K and Ors. - Respondent
Bail App. No. 139/2020, Crl.M. Nos. 1444 and 1445/2020
Decided On : 11-12-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Pranav Kohli, Advocate
For the Respondents: Aijaz Lon, Dy. AG

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 354-A/452/506 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 -164 and 439 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012 – Section 3,5,7,8,9 and 29 - Molestation - Petition are that police of Police Station received an order from the Child Welfare Committee, wherein it was alleged that victim girl approached a Member of Child Welfare Committee, from Child line, Jammu and informed her that she was molested by her neighbored and requested for immediate redressal of her grievance - On the basis of this, concerned Member of said Committee constituted a team to contact the child so as to listen to her grievance/complaint - Mother of victim girl along with the victim appeared before the Child Welfare Committee and she made a statement before Committee - As per story narrated by victim girl to aforesaid Committee, petitioner herein/accused, who happens to be neighbourer of victim, came to her house and started talking vulgar and irrelevant things to her, while her mother was lying admitted in hospital and her younger brother was sleeping - Victim further narrated to aforesaid Committee that petitioner/accused rubbed his hand on her mouth, pulled her hand, asked her to sit in his lap, touched her private parts and asked her to accompany him to roof for making love - Victim went on to narrate that she locked herself in a room and from there, she called the son of petitioner/accused who came over there and she narrated the whole story to him, but she was abused and threatened by the son of the accused - Victim further narrated that since her mother was hospitalised and his father is serving in Army she got frightened - Whether it ex-facie appears that the evidence will not sustain the weight of guilt – Held, first ground taken by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was on interim bail and it was not open to the trial Court to dismiss bail application of petitioner without there being any ground for cancellation of bail - Court afraid, contention of learned counsel for petitioner in this regard is mis-conceived - It is not a case where petitioner was granted bail and thereafter his bail was cancelled - Having regard to fact that petitioner happens to be the next door neighbourer of victim whose mother has already died and whose father is posted outside UT of Jammu and Kashmir, exertion of pressure upon the victim by petitioner so as to coerce her not to depose against him before the trial Court cannot be ruled out - Therefore, granting bail to the petitioner at this stage, at least till the statement of the victim is recorded before the trial Court, would thwart the course of justice - For all the foregoing reasons, court do not find it a fit case where petitioner can be enlarged on bail at this stage - Application is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No. 40/2020 for offences under Sections 354-A/452/506 IPC and under Section 8 of POCSO Act registered with Police Station, Bari Brahamana.

2. The facts leading to filing of this petition are that on 25.02.2020, the police of Police Station Bari Brahmana received an order dated 22.02.2020 from the Child Welfare Committee, Samba wherein it was alleged that on 19.02.2020, the victim girl approached a Member of the Child Welfare Committee, Samba from Child line, Jammu and informed her that she was molested by her neighbourer and requested for immediate redressal of her grievance. On the basis of this, the concerned Member of the said Committee constituted a team to contact the child so as to listen to her grievance/complaint. On 22.02.2020, the mother of the victim girl along with the victim appeared before the Child Welfare Committee and she made a statement before the Committee. As per the story narrated by the victim girl to the aforesaid Committee, on 18.02.2020 at about 9 pm, the petitioner herein/accused, who happens to be the neighbourer of the victim, came to her house and started talking vulgar and irrelevant things to her, while her mother was lying admitted in the hospital and her younger brother was sleeping. The victim further narrated to the aforesaid Committee that the petitioner/accused rubbed his hand on her mouth, pulled her hand, asked her to sit in his lap, touched her private parts and asked her to accompany him to the roof for making love. The victim went on to narrate that she locked herself in a room and from there, she called the son of the petitioner/accused who came over there and she narrated the whole story to him, but she was abused and threatened by the son of the accused. The victim further narrated that since her mother was hospitalised and his father is serving in the Army at Chennai, she got frightened.

3. Upon receiving the order from the aforesaid Committee, the police registered the subject FIR and started investigation of the case. The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and after investigation of the case, offences under Sections 354-A/452/506 IPC and 8 of POCSO Act were found established against the petitioner/accused and he was arrested.

4. It appears that on account of outbreak of Covid-19 infection, the petitioner was granted interim bail for a period of one month by the learned trial Court in terms of its order dated 30.03.2020 and the same was extended from time to time up to 09.07.2020. On 08.07.2020, the petitioner moved an application for seeking extension of interim bail, but vide its order dated 10.07.2020, the same was declined by the trial Court and he was directed to surrender before the Jail authorities, whereafter the petitioner is stated to have surrendered and is in custody since then. It further appears that the petitioner after filing of charge sheet before the trial Court on 18.07.2020, again moved an application for grant of bail before the trial Court, but the same was dismissed by the trial Court vide its order dated 29.07.2020.

5. The petitioner has sought bail on the grounds that the learned trial Court was not justified in rejecting his bail application when he was already on interim bail and there was nothing on record before the trial Court to show that he had misused the concession of bail; that the petitioner is not involved in a case which entails severe punishment as the offence for which he has been booked carries a maximum punishment up to 7 years and, as such, he is entitled to grant of bail, particularly because the investigation of the case is complete and the challan has been presented before the trial Court; that the petitioner would not flee from justice and he would abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court in case he is admitted to bail.

6. The respondent has resisted the bail applicati

                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                  1
                  2
                  3
                  4
                  5
                  6
                  7
                  8
                  9
                  10
                  11
                  SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                  supreme today icon
                  logo-black

                  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

                  qr

                  Scan Me!

                  India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                  For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                  whatsapp-icon Back to top