Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 182 (HP)

Suraj Pratap Singh v. State of H. P.

2019-02-15

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. Status report stands filed. 2. This petition has been filed for seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 2/2018, dated 30.10.2018, registered under Section 354 of the IPC and under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offices Act, 2012, at Women Police Station, Solan, District Solan, H.P. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim, who is stepdaughter of the accused, lodged a complaint on 30.10.2018 stating therein that she is daughter of late Rajesh Kumar and is residing in village Garoni (Kumharda), post office Kabakalan, Tehsil and District Solan. It is further stated in the complaint that the mother of the prosecutrix had re-married in the year 2004 (after the death of her first husband in the year 2002) with accused Suraj Partap Singh (step father of the victim) who is resident of Kurukshetra. The accused used to beat her and her brother and when she was studying in 9th Class, he had vulgar conversation with her and when she was in 10+1 he tried to kiss her so many times and some times had succeeded to do so and had also picked and thrown her on the bed so many time and when she used to cry, he had beaten her and abused with filthy words. He also used to beat and abuse her mother. Further in the year 2018, he had transmitted indecent message on her mobile phone and asked her to call him when she was alone and on objection to the same, he had abused her mother. In last, it is stated that during previous night, after taking liquor the accused had a quarrel with family members and broken the household articles and when he was asked to sleep, then he had again used indecent words asking her to put up her clothes. It is also stated in the complaint that since the age of 14 years she is facing physical exploitation but at that time she was unaware about it. Along with record, print of SMS sent and copy of letter written by accused to complainant has also been placed on record which prima facie corroborates the allegations. 4. The prosecutrix has reiterated her allegations made in the complaint in her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. 5. Along with record, print of SMS sent and copy of letter written by accused to complainant has also been placed on record which prima facie corroborates the allegations. 4. The prosecutrix has reiterated her allegations made in the complaint in her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. 5. The petitioner accused was arrested by the police on 04.11.2018 and since then he is behind the bars. Investigation is complete and challan has been presented in the Court and the case is listed for consideration of charge on 22.02.2019. 6. The present petition has been preferred on the ground that at the time of lodging the complaint the age of the victim is 19 years, therefore, the provisions of POCSO Act are not applicable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is admitted to be true, then only at the most, case under Section 354 IPC is made out for which the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars. 7. This petition has been opposed by the prosecution on the ground that it is evident from the nature of the allegation and record that at the time of commission of offence the prosecutrix- victim was studying in 9th Class and was 14 years of age and the petitioner is habitual in committing indecent activities with her, who is his step daughter and further that the provisions with regard to commission of offence are to be invoked on the basis of date of commission of offence and not on the basis of the date of the making complaint. It is further stated that the victim who is residing with her mother only and there is no other shelter available to her and in case the petitioner is released on bail, who being a step father of the victim has right to live with her mother, will also be residing in the same residential accommodation and thus there is every possibility of tampering with the evidence by influencing or threatening the victim from deposing the true facts before the trial Court at the time of recording of her evidence and there is also possibility of the accused committing the same offence as the victim has specifically stated in her complaint that despite reprimand or opposing he continued to commit the alleged offence. 8. 8. The case is listed for consideration on 22.02.2019 before the learned trial Court and thereafter it is to be listed for recording evidence of the prosecutrix. The petitioner is not the permanent resident of the Himachal Pradesh and he has also not disclosed his permanent address and the victim is yet to be examined. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find merit in submissions of learned Additional Advocate General and, therefore, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail petition is dismissed.