IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM, GANGTOK
BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J.
Panna Lal Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim - Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 05 of 2017
Decided On : 04-10-2017
BAIL - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 439, Section 363/354/506/34 IPC, Section 8/12/14 POCSO Act, 2012
Fact of the Case:
The accused applied for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The prosecutrix, a 16-year-old girl, alleged that the accused threatened and sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the bail application, considering the severity of the allegations, the danger of witness intimidation, and the need to protect fair trial.
Issues: The court analyzed the nature of the offences, the likelihood of witness intimidation, and the balance between the accused's liberty and fair trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of protecting fair trial and ensuring witness testimony without fear, especially in heinous cases. It considered the reasonable apprehension of witness intimidation and the severity of the alleged offences.
Final Decision: The bail application was rejected, with liberty for the accused to approach the Special Court after material witnesses are examined.
ORDER
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
1. An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by the accused allegedly involved in Jorethang P.S. FIR No.41/2017 dated 29.07.2017 under Section 363/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 8/12/14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act, 2012) on the ground that the investigation is nearly complete; the allegation in the FIR does not satisfy the ingredients of the alleged offence; the accused is a business man of repute and the only earning member of the family and suffering from accelerated hypertension is vehemently opposed by the State on the ground that the allegation in the FIR makes it evident that the accused, if released on bail may continue to threaten the victim and tamper with vital evidence.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present application is lucid in the FIR lodged on 29.07.2017 at the Jorethang Police Station by the prosecutrix, a girl child of 16 years and 4 months. The allegation in the FIR is to the effect that while walking back home after school the accused stopped his red colour i10 car, asked if she was going home and offered her a lift when she replied that she was in fact going home. The prosecutrix thus got into the vehicle of the accused. However, when the accused diverted the vehicle towards Namchi instead of Nayabazar the prosecutrix inquired as to where he was going. The accused replied that he would finish his work and quickly take her back to Nayabazar. The prosecutrix believed the accused and they continued till Karfectar when he stopped the vehicle, took out his small knife from the vehicle’s document box and asked the prosecutrix to remove her clothes otherwise he would stab her. The prosecutrix did not comply for a while but when the accused brought the knife next to her nose and threatened her that he would kill her she got frightened and removed her PT dress after which he threatened her more and made her remove even her undergarments. Thereafter, the accused started touching her front body which made her cry. The accused, thereafter, threatened her and made her pose with a smile and took photographs of her on his mobile. The accused then told her to wear her clothes and not to tell anybody otherwise he would kill her and upload the photograph on facebook. The accused then took the prosecutrix to Nayabazar after which she went home. Due to the fact that her grandmother had been taken ill and her father had taken her to Siliguri there was much tension at home and the prosecutrix did not relate the story to anybody. Subsequently, the accused once again threatened her by telling her that if she did not get in his car he would upload the photograph on facebook and whatsapp after which the prosecutrix got into the vehicle where again the accused made her undress and took another photograph. Fifteen days prior to the lodging of the FIR, the accused had once again met the prosecutrix in Nayabazar near the shop and asked her to go with him for doing “naramro kam” (dirty act) but she declined and he threatened her that he would circulate the photographs. A day before the lodging of the FIR the prosecutrix’s aunt told the prosecutrix’s father that she had been shown the prosecutrix’s naked photo by a lady who is the co-accused. After that on being asked by the prosecutrix’s father, the prosecutrix told him the entire story. Her father had heard that the accused and the co-accused had uploaded her photograph on whatsapp and facebook. Stating all the aforesaid facts in the written complaint dated 29.07.2017, the prosecutrix lodged the aforesaid FIR.
3. The accused thereafter approached the Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 at Namchi for bail on three occasions each of which were however, rejected. The last rejection was vide Order dated 15.09.2017.
4. The co-a
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.