Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 240 (HP)

Chuni Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2023-04-28

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. A case was registered under Sections 366, 366-A, 376, 120-B of IPC and Sections 4 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, “POCSO” Act), vide FIR No. 10 of 2023, dated 19.01.2023 at Police Station, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. 2. Petitioner is one of the accused arrayed in the above noted case. The investigation is complete and challan has been filed. 3. Facts giving rise to the registration of above noted case are that on 19.01.2023, the child victim in custody of Child Development Project Officer, Karsog and others reported to the police that she was 13 years old and was a student of 8th standard in Middle School, Nehra. She had two brothers and a sister and her mother worked at a “Dhaba” at Karsog Bus stand. She had already lost her father. On 07.02.2022, she visited market in Karsog on the pretext that she was going to visit the house of her maternal grand-father at Bhandarnu. She met two boys named Raj and Sunny at Karsog Bus-stand. She knew Raj for the last four months and were exchanging phone calls with each other. Raj offered to take the victim to Tattapani on the promise to marry her. On the refusal of child victim, she was forced to ride pillion on the motorcycle and was taken to Tattapani. There the child victim and accused Raj started residing as husband and wife. Raj maintained physical relations with her. She even conceived. After disclosure of factum of pregnancy of child victim to accused Raj, he started harassing the victim and forced her to abort the fetus. She was pregnant by one month and had wished to go to her mother’s house, but accused Raj started giving beating to her. Due to such beatings, the fetus was aborted. Even the parents of Raj did not object to the conduct of Raj. Even on 18.01.2023, Raj had maintained physical relations with her. 4. The accused Raj alongwith his parents and petitioner have been arrayed as accused. The allegation against petitioner is that he accompanied accused Raj on motorcycle when the child victim was taken from Karsog to Tattapani on 07.02.2022. Beyond this, there is no further allegation against the petitioner. 5. Petitioner has prayed for grant of bail on the ground that he is innocent and has committed no offence. The allegation against petitioner is that he accompanied accused Raj on motorcycle when the child victim was taken from Karsog to Tattapani on 07.02.2022. Beyond this, there is no further allegation against the petitioner. 5. Petitioner has prayed for grant of bail on the ground that he is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that there is no evidence against him which may suggest the criminal intent of petitioner at any stage. It is further submitted that petitioner is of young age and his pre-trial incarceration will not serve any purpose, rather it will be detrimental in his career building. Petitioner is stated to be permanent resident of Village Dumo, Post Office Jassal, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from the course of justice. Petitioner has also undertaken to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed against him. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 7. Status report filed on behalf of the respondent reveals that after completion of investigation, challan has already been presented. The only evidence collected against petitioner is that he accompanied the accused Raj on motorcycle when the child victim was taken to Tattapani from Karsog. In the given circumstances, criminal intent of petitioner cannot be ascertained with precision. 8. Petitioner has already suffered custody since 21.01.2023. He is only 19 years of age and his prolonged detention in the given facts of the case will not be warranted for the reasons firstly that it is likely to adversely affect his career and secondly, in absence of any specific criminal intent attributed to him, petitioner cannot be kept in custody for indeterminate period. Pretrial incarceration cannot be applied as a matter of rule. 9. No doubt, the nature of accusation is a relevant factor for deciding the bail plea of an accused, but that cannot be the sole factor to deny right of liberty. The nature and quality of evidence collected in support of accusations, also plays an important role. As noted above, in the instant case, there is nothing against petitioner which suggests with certainty that petitioner had accompanied his co-accused Raj with some criminal intent in mind. 10. The nature and quality of evidence collected in support of accusations, also plays an important role. As noted above, in the instant case, there is nothing against petitioner which suggests with certainty that petitioner had accompanied his co-accused Raj with some criminal intent in mind. 10. Petitioner is permanent resident of Village Dumo, Post Office Jassal, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. and there is no likelihood of his absconding/fleeing from the course of justice. No criminal history has been attributed to the petitioner. The only concern of this Court at this stage is to facilitate the fair and early disposal of trial for which petitioner can be put to appropriate terms. 11. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case registered vide FIR No. 10 of 2023, dated 19.01.2023, at Police Station, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. under Sections 366, 366-A, 376, 120-B of IPC and Sections 4 and 17 of the POCSO Act, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. This order is, however, subject to the following conditions : (i) That the petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity and in the event of breach of this condition, the bail granted to the petitioner in this case, shall automatically be cancelled. (ii) That the petitioner shall not leave the territory of India without express leave of Trial Court during the Trial. (iii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. (iv) That the petitioner shall regularly attend the trial of the case before learned Trial Court and shall not cause any delay in its conclusion. 12. 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.