O R D E R

Bail petitioner-Ravi Kumar, who is behind bars since

1.8.2021, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under S.439 CrPC, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 59, dated 21.7.2021, registered at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, under S. 354D IPC and S.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

2. Status report filed in terms of order dated 4.8.2021, reveals that the victim-prosecutrix (name withheld) lodged a complaint at Police Station Parwanoo, on 21.7.2021, alleging therein that bail petitioner resides at a distance of 1 km from her house and he has been stalking her for so many days. She alleged that bail petitioner keeps on pressurizing her for marriage, as a consequence of which she is under mental stress. She alleged that though she repeatedly conveyed to the bail petitioner that she does not want to marry her but yet the bail petitioner stalks her. She alleged that on 19.7.2201, at 3.30 pm, while she was grazing her cattle at a distance of 200 metre from her house, bail petitioner contacted her and asked her to solemnize marriage with him but she refused. In the aforesaid background, FIR detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the bail petitioner, who approached court of learned Special Judge Solan, for interim bail. Initially bail petitioner was enlarged on bail but ultimately on 31.7.2021 bail granted in his favour came to be cancelled as a result of which, bail petitioner is behind the bars since 1.8.2021. Since investigation is almost complete and nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner. he has approached this court in the instant proceedings.

3. Mr. Narinder Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to completion of investigation submits that though nothing remains to recovered from bail petitioner but keeping in view gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail, deserves outright rejection. Mr. Thakur, Learned Deputy Advocate General, further contends that there is ample evidence collected on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner has been troubling victim-prosecutrix for months together and as such, in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may not only flee from justice but can cause harm to victim-prosecutrix as such, prayer for grant of bail made on behalf of the bail petitioner, deserves rejection outrightly.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that victim-prosecutrix lodged complaint alleging therein that bail petitioner had been following/stalking her for so many days and he constantly put pressure on her to solemnize marriage with him. Since victim-prosecutrix is not interested to marry the bail petitioner, she refused to meet the bail petitioner but yet he kept on stalking her. Bare perusal of complaint nowhere discloses offence, if any, under S.11 of Act because ‘sexual harassment’ as defined under S.11 of the Act can be said to be committed when a person, with ‘sexual intent’ utters any word or makes any sound, or makes any gesture or exhibits any object or part of body with the intention that such word or sound shall be heard, or such gesture or object or part of body shall be seen by the child; or makes a child exhibit his body or any part of his body so as it is seen by such person or any other person. Though S.11 (iv) of the Act talks about stalking also but to constitute ‘sexual harassment’, stalking has to be with ‘sexual intent’. In the instant case, though there is allegation that bail petitioner constantly follows/stalks the victim-prosecutrix and pressurizes her for marriage, there is no allegation that he did the same with ‘sexual intent’.

5. Though, the aforesaid aspect of the matter is to be dealt by learned trial court in the totality of evidence led on record, but having taken note of the complaint of victim-prosec