Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 901 (HP)

Shoyeb Ahmed v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-05-05

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, Judge. Applicant-Shoyeb Ahmed has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), seeking, his release on bail, during the pendency of trial, in case FIR No. 90 of 2024, dated 6 th June, 2024, registered with Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 363 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’). 2. According to the applicant, he is innocent and has falsely been implicated and arrested, in the above- noted FIR, as, the child victim herself wishes to marry him and due to the discord between the families, the present case has been registered against him. 3. The applicant is stated to have been arrested, in this case, on 14 th June, 2024, and, since then, he is stated to have been lodged in Model Central Jail, Nahan. 4. As per the applicant, the investigation, in the present case, is complete and charge sheet has been filed in the Competent Court of Law. 5. The applicant has earlier moved CrMP (M) No. 2729 of 2024, before this Court, which has been dismissed as withdrawn, vide order, dated 12 th December, 2024. 6. Apart from this, Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 7. On all these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application. 8. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 6 th June, 2024, the complainant (father of the child victim) produced a complaint, before the police, disclosing therein, that for the last seven months, he is residing at place ‘X’ in Paonta Sahib. 8.1. According to the complainant, his daughter (child victim), aged about 17 years, has gone somewhere from the house, in the morning of 2 nd June, 2024 and efforts were made to trace her, but, she could not be found. 8.2. 8.1. According to the complainant, his daughter (child victim), aged about 17 years, has gone somewhere from the house, in the morning of 2 nd June, 2024 and efforts were made to trace her, but, she could not be found. 8.2. It has been mentioned in the complaint that later on, the complainant came to know about the fact that the child victim has been enticed away by applicant- Shoyeb. As such, he has requested the police to bring back the child victim. 8.3. On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the FIR, under Section 363 IPC and initial investigation was entrusted to HC Vikas Chaudhary. 8.4. As per the status report, during investigation, search was made for the child victim in the near-by places. On 14 th June, 2024, during search for the child victim and the accused (applicant), they were found at place ‘Y’, in District Panchkula and were brought to the Police Station. Thereafter, the statement of the child victim was recorded, under Section 161 CrPC, in which, she has disclosed that she wants to solemnize marriage with the applicant. The child victim disclosed her date of birth as 26 th December, 2006, according to which, she was minor. She has also refused to get herself medico-legally examined, however, her UPT Test was found to be positive. 8.5. Thereafter, in her statement, the child victim has disclosed that she is carrying the foetus of two months and the applicant had ravished her a number of times. As such, Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act was added, in this case. 8.6. During the course of investigation, blood sample of the child victim was obtained on FTA Card. The applicant was arrested on 14 th June, 2025. He was also medico-legally examined and the physical evidence, so collected, by the Doctors, was taken into possession. 8.7. As per the status report, on 15 th June, 2024, the child victim was produced in the Court of ACJM, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, where, her statement was recorded, under Section 164 CrPC. Thereafter, the spot was visited. The spot map was prepared and physical evidence, so collected, from there, was taken into possession. 8.8. It has been mentioned in the status report that during investigation, by producing the child victim, before the Doctors in Dr. Thereafter, the spot was visited. The spot map was prepared and physical evidence, so collected, from there, was taken into possession. 8.8. It has been mentioned in the status report that during investigation, by producing the child victim, before the Doctors in Dr. YS Parmar Government Medical College and Hospital, Nahan, products of conception were preserved and sent to SFSL Junga, from where, the report has been received, according to which, the applicant has been proved to be the biological father of the products of conception. 8.9. As per the status report, the documents, pertaining to the date of birth of the child victim were procured, according to which, her date of birth was found to be 26 th December, 2006. 8.10. It has further been mentioned in the status report that after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC (Rape & POCSO), District Sirmaur at Nahan and the case is now stated to have been fixed for consideration on charge. 9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the bail application. 10. In this case, the child victim has put appearance through her counsel. In the reply/objection to the bail application, the child victim has exonerated the applicant from all the allegations, by asserting that nothing wrong has been done with her, by the applicant. In addition to this, the child victim has stated that now, she stands married and does not want to pursue the matter further. The child victim has also made her no objection, in case, the bail application is allowed. The reply/objection has duly been supported by the affidavit of the child victim, in which, she has given her age as 18 years. 11. No doubt, the child victim has refused to get herself medico-legally examined, but, in this case, as per the status report, the child victim has been found to be pregnant and as per the DNA Report, the applicant has been found to be the biological father of the products of conception, however, keeping in view the stand taken by the child victim, in her reply/objection to the bail application, this Court is of the view that the case, which has been alleged against the applicant, will be proved during the trial. It is matter of record that the child victim will depose against the applicant or will stick to the stand, as taken in the reply/objection to the bail application. 12. In the affidavit, which has been filed, in support of the reply/objection to the bail application, the child victim has given her age as 18 years. The age of the applicant is about 23 years and keeping in view the young age of the applicant, in case, the applicant is ordered to be kept in judicial custody, then, it would adversely affect his future, as, he will remain in the company of the hardened criminals. 13. Investigation, in the present case, is complete, as, charge sheet has been filed and the case is stated to have been fixed for consideration on charge. 14. Except the present case, no criminal history of the applicant has been mentioned in the status report, nor, has been argued by the learned Additional Advocate General, during the course of arguments. 15. Moreover, the chances of the commencement and conclusion of the trial, against the applicant, in near future, are not so bright, as such, no useful purpose would be served, by keeping the applicant in judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period. 16. The bail application cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment, as, the accused is presumed to be innocent, till the conclusion of the trial. The dismissal of the bail application is nothing, but, punishing the applicant before the conclusion of the trial, which is prohibited under the law. 17. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. 18. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 90 of 2024, dated 6 th June, 2024, registered with Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 363 & 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, on his furnishing bail bonds, in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 50,000/-, with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions: a) The applicant shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; b) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c) The applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and d) The applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 19. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail application. 20. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found to be violated by the applicant. 21. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software. 22. In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA Sirmaur at Nahan. The Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court.