Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 890 (HP)

Amit v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2022-12-30

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Petitioner is an accused of commission of offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, “POCSO” Act), registered vide FIR No. 60 of 2020, dated 29.07.2020 at Police Station, Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P. He is facing trial before learned Special Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan. 2. The case was registered vide FIR No. 60 of 2020 on the complaint of the father of the victim. It was alleged that the victim was aged about 16 years and 2 months old, when the alleged offence was committed. Petitioner is accused of having taken the victim out of the guardianship of her parents without their consent for purposes of marrying her and had thereafter committed rape on her. As per allegations made in the complaint, on 29.07.2020, the petitioner had taken the victim from her native village via Delhi to Meerut to his house, where, as per victim, the rape was committed upon her. It is further alleged against petitioner that he was already married. The prosecution has already examined 11, out of the total 24 cited witnesses. 3. Petitioner has prayed for grant of bail on the ground that he has been in custody for the last more than two years. The trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Petitioner has, thus, raised the plea of violation of his right to life and personal liberty. As per petitioner, he is entitled for speedy trial, which right has been denied to him. Further, the petitioner has contended that he is innocent and has committed no offence. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file carefully. 5. Learned Special Judge has already framed charges against the petitioner, for commission of offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, after application of mind. The order so passed by learned Special Judge has remained un-assailed. In view of this, it will be too far-fetched to say that prima-facie material does not exist against the petitioner. 6. Petitioner undoubtedly is accused of a very serious and heinous offence. The victim was about 16 years of age at the time of commission of offence, whereas, the petitioner was aged about 28 years. Petitioner is stated to be already married. 6. Petitioner undoubtedly is accused of a very serious and heinous offence. The victim was about 16 years of age at the time of commission of offence, whereas, the petitioner was aged about 28 years. Petitioner is stated to be already married. In such circumstances, petitioner cannot be said to have any plausible explanation for his conduct. 7. The offence, if proved against petitioner, may attract severe punishments against him. It has also been brought on record that after commission of offences in question, within a short span, he was involved in a case of theft at Delhi and was arrested there. The custody of petitioner was got transferred from Delhi by the Himachal Police for the purpose of investigation of FIR in question. Thus, the antecedents of petitioner are doubtful. 8. The concern of this Court at this stage is to secure fair and expeditious trial of the case. With doubtful antecedents of petitioner, it cannot be said that he will not affect the fair trial of the case after his release. The prosecution evidence is still in the process of being recorded and in the event of release of petitioner on bail at this stage, he may try to win-over and influence the prosecution witnesses. In view of aforesaid backdrop, it may also be difficult to secure the presence of the petitioner for early disposal of the trial. 9. No doubt, petitioner is in custody for about two years. It also cannot be disputed that petitioner has a right of speedy trial, however, it cannot be forgotten that the conclusion of trial depends on many factors and sometimes such factors are beyond anybody’s control. The offence in this case was committed in July, 2020, whereafter, it was a period when every aspect of life was affected by COVID-19 pandemic. It’s after effects continued for quite a long period. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the trial has been unduly delayed. 10. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is dismissed. 11. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.