Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 296 (HP)

Lakhwinder Alias Gur Pal v. State Of H. P.

2021-05-05

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2021
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 59/2020, dated 14.12.2020, registered at Women Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, HP, under Sections 363, 366, 354(1)A and 419 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 14.12.2020, complainant Sivil Singh, filed a written complaint at Women Police Station, Baddi, to the effect that he was a permanent resident of village Bamanpura, Post Office Mayasur, District Kasganj, U.P. and presently was residing in a rented accommodation with his family for the last four years at village Batedh, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan. On 13.12.2020, there was a function in the family of his elder daughter, who was residing at some distance from his house. His younger daughter, aged about 12 years, was also with them. While they were busy, the victim alone came back to the house to fill water but she did not return back. At around 8:00 pm, when the complainant alongwith his wife returned to their house but their daughter was not found in the room which was locked. Enquiries revealed that the victim had not returned to the room. They searched for their daughter and as they suspected that she had been taken away by some unknown person, accordingly, the complainant lodged the complaint in the police station. 3. During the course of investigation, child victim alongwith accused was recovered from Baddi bus stand on 15.12.2020. The accused was arrested. Statement of the victim was got recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Investigation revealed that the accused kidnapped the victim on the fateful day from village Batedh under the allurement to marry her. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the complaint filed against the petitioner is false and fabricated and he is not guilty of the offences alleged against him. He has further submitted that the age of the victim is not 12 years as alleged and her age probably is between 14 to 17 years. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the complaint filed against the petitioner is false and fabricated and he is not guilty of the offences alleged against him. He has further submitted that the age of the victim is not 12 years as alleged and her age probably is between 14 to 17 years. He has further submitted that the statement of the person, at whose house the accused had put up the victim, recorded by the police also demonstrates that the accused did not do anything wrong with the victim. On these bases, learned Counsel submitted that the bail petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Opposing the bail petition, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the offences alleged against the accused/petitioner are grave and heinous. She submitted that the accused is guilty of kidnapping a minor child and that too a small girl aged about 12 years, who in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has narrated the trauma she underwent through. Learned Deputy Advocate General has also drawn the attention of this Court to the findings returned by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Solan, dated 15.03.2021, in a bail petition filed by the present petitioner before the said Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which, learned Special Court has observed that the victim was merely 12 years old at the time of commission of the offences and in her statement before the said Court, she has expressed her objection to the release of the accused as she apprehended danger from the accused. Learned Court also held that considering the tender age of the victim and further considering the huge age gap between the victim and accused, the apprehension of the victim could not be overlooked. On these bases, State has prayed that as the bail petition filed by the petitioner was rightly rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Solan, and as learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any change in circumstances so as to warrant interference by this Court again in favour of the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the bail petition be dismissed. 6. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the status report as well as the order passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Solan. 7. The victim is stated to be 12 years old as per the prosecution which fact is disputed by the accused. The offences alleged against the accused are indeed grave and heinous. Incidentally, during the course of arguments, the factum of the victim being kidnapped by the petitioner has not been denied but the only defence is that nothing wrong was done with the victim. In my considered view, this cannot be a ground for release of the petitioner on bail, taking into consideration the allegations against him. Further a bail petition filed by the present petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Solan, vide order dated 15th March, 2021, which is both a reasoned as well as a speaking order. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate any change in circumstances as from the date of pronouncement of the said order by the learned Court below and filing of this petition so as to warrant interference by this Court in favour of the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. In this view of the matter, as this Court is of the considered view that no case for release of the petitioner has been made out and further release of the petitioner at this stage, shall be detrimental to the interests of the minor victim, as there is each and every possibility of the petitioner making endeavour to win over the witnesses etc. or coerce them so as to hinder smooth course of the trial, this petition is dismissed.