IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .

Cr. MP (M) No. 2753 of 2023 Reserved on: 22.11.202.3 Date of Decision: 05.12.2023.

Devender Kallu @ Kallu ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arjun Lal, Legal Aid Counsel.

For the Respondent : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

HRakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that FIR No. 56 of 2022, dated 27.6.2022 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station BSL Colony, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363 & 376(3) of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). As per the prosecution, the victim’s grandmother made a complaint on 27.6.2022 that the victim was found missing from her home on 26.6.2022. The police registered the FIR. The victim was found at Baddi. She disclosed that she had left her home with ₹500/- to Baddi. The petitioner offered her a lift and took her to his home, where he raped her. The police arrested the petitioner on 8.7.2022. The petitioner has been fualsely implicated. As per the Entry No. 10, dated 1.7.2022, tohe victim was found roaming by the villagers, who told tChis fact to Pradhan and Pradhan informed the police. The prosecution version that the victim was recovered from the house of the petitioner has been made doubtful. The victim had left the home voluntarily and the petitioner had not enticed her Hto leave her home. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, this petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report, asserting that the victim’s grandmother informed the police that the victim was missing. The police recovered the victim at Baddi. She revealed on inquiry that she had gone from Mandi to Baddi with ₹500/-. The petitioner took the victim to his home and raped her. The victim was medically examined. The victim duly identified the petitioner in the Test Identification Parade. The date of birth of the victim was found to be 24.11.2008 and she was less than 14 years of age on the date of the incident. The challan was prepared and presented before the Court of Learned Special Judge, (POCSO), Mandi, who held that the matter did not fall within his jurisdiction. This order was challenged before the High Court but the reuvision was dismissed. The challan has been prepared and proesented before the Court of learned Additional Sessions JuCdge-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P.

3. I have heard Mr. Arjun Lal, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

4. Mr. Arjun Lal, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh versus Dalip Kumar alias Dipu 2023 SCC Online 1059 and the judgment of this Court in Pankaj versus State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 2092 of 2022, decided on

28.9.2022.

5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the victim had specifically named the petitioner as the person who had sexually assaulted her. She was less than 14 years of age and a prima-facie case has been made out against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The offence is heinous; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be diusmissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the rival submissions at the bar and have gone through the record carefully .

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak, 2023