Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 537 (HP)

Parshant Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-08-28

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The matter is taken up through video conference. 2. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 27 of 2020, dated 27.07.2020, under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, registered in Police Station Sadar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh 3. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of District Bilaspur, H.P., and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by sending him behind the bars, so he be released on bail. 4. Police report stands filed. The prosecution story, as emanates from the records, is that on 27.07.2020 the prosecutrix (name withheld) made a written complaint to the police, wherein she alleged that during the year 2018 she became friend of one Parshant Sharma (petitioner herein). The prosecutrix further alleged that during the year 2018 she and the petitioner used to study in a same school. Both of them liked each other and during the month of July, 2019, the petitioner took her in a hotel at Barthi, where he sexually molested her on the pretext of marriage. Again on 31.12.2019 the petitioner took the prosecutrix in the same hotel and sexually molested her. As per the prosecutrix, at that time she was 17 years' old. Later on, the petitioner flatly refused to marry her. Upon the complaint, so made by the prosecutrix, police registered a case under the apt sections and she was medically examined. Scientific samples were preserved for examination and the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Police visited the spot, prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Police also procured the records qua the dates of birth of the prosecutrix and that of the petitioner. During the course of investigation, it was unearthed that at the time of occurrence, the prosecutrix was 17 (seventeen) years' old. Despite efforts, the police could not nab the petitioner. Police also procured the records qua the dates of birth of the prosecutrix and that of the petitioner. During the course of investigation, it was unearthed that at the time of occurrence, the prosecutrix was 17 (seventeen) years' old. Despite efforts, the police could not nab the petitioner. It was unearthed that the petitioner at the time of occurrence was minor and upon the orders of this Court he is joining the investigation. The petitioner was medically examined. As per the police, the prosecutrix has now moved a petition before this Hon'be High for quashing the FIR lodged against the petitioner. The prosecutrix has compromised the matter before the concerned Gram Panchayat and to this effect a compromise deed has been drawn. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious crime. There is possibility that in case at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his bail application be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of District Bilaspur, H.P., and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. He has argued that the prosecutrix has now compromised the matter with the petitioner and she is not willing to pursue the case. He has further argued that the petitioner at the time of alleged commission of crime was minor. In the wake of all the above enumerated circumstances, it is prayed that the petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence. He has further argued that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence. He has further argued that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that at the time of alleged occurrence both the petitioner and the prosecutrix were minors and now the matter stands compromised, the prosecutrix has moved a petition before this Hon'ble High Court for quashing the FIR lodged against the petitioner. He has further argued that the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, so the petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 8. At this stage, after considering the different facets of the case in hand and giving thoughtful and incisive consideration to the facts that the petitioner and the prosecutrix, at the time of alleged occurrence, were minors, now the prosecutrix has maintained a petition before this Hon'ble High Court for quashing the FIR lodged against the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner is permanent resident of District Bilaspur, H.P., and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence not in a position to flee from justice, his custody is not at all required by the police, nothing remains to be recovered at his instance, he is joining and co-operating in the investigation, considering the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, considering the manner in which the same is alleged to have been committed and also considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, in this case, is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 27 of 2020, dated 27.07.2020, under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, registered in Police Station Sadar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required. (ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioner will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court. 9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.