Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 906 (HP)

Rohit Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-05-05

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 16 of 2023, dated 25.2.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), at Police Station Pachhad, District Sirmour, H.P. As per the prosecution’s case, the victim was well acquainted with the petitioner. The petitioner called and raped her in the year 2021. He again called her to his room in September, 2022 and raped her. The victim became pregnant. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The parties were in a relationship for a long period, and they were known to each other. The petitioner has been behind the bars since 26.2.2023, and the matter was listed for prosecution evidence on 23.4.2025. It will take some time to conclude the trial. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police received information from the Regional Hospital, Solan, that a pregnant minor girl was brought to the hospital. The police visited the hospital. The victim made a statement under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. that she was studying in class 10 th . She developed an acquaintance with the petitioner. The petitioner called her to his room in 2021 and raped her. He again raped her in September, 2022. She became pregnant. She suffered from a stomachache and was taken to the hospital, where she was found to be pregnant. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. As per the date of birth certificate of the victim obtained from the school, she was born on 22.8.2007. She delivered a child. The DNA of the petitioner, the victim and the child matched each other. The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court on 23.4.2025 for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. 3. I have heard Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. 3. I have heard Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The prosecution has not completed the trial within one year as mandated under Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of the heinous offence. The statement of the victim has not been recorded so far, and releasing the petitioner on bail will influence the trial adversely. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: - “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice”, has been construed in several decisions of this Court. The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice”, has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570 , this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms: — “15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance, effective in the pragmatic sense, and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such an extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779 , laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the application for bail and observed: “ 4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. The status report shows that the DNA of the baby matched with the DNA of the victim and the petitioner which corroborates the victim’s version that the petitioner had raped her. The victim was born on 22.8.2007, and she was aged 14 years in the year 2021 and 15 years in the year 2022. Hence, prima facie, the case for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act is made out against the petitioner. 10. It was submitted that the petitioner has been behind the bars since 26.2.2023. The prosecution has not concluded the evidence; therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail because of the violation of his right to a speedy trial. This submission is not acceptable. A perusal of the certified copies of order sheets placed on record shows that the matter was listed for prosecution evidence on 31.7.2023. A request was made on behalf of the petitioner to call for the report of FSL, and it was stated on the petitioner’s behalf that the examination of prosecution witnesses at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 could not be conducted. A request was made on behalf of the petitioner to call for the report of FSL, and it was stated on the petitioner’s behalf that the examination of prosecution witnesses at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 could not be conducted. The Court adjourned the matter for five months at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, the petitioner changed his counsel on 7.11.2023, hence, it cannot be said that the delay is not attributable to the petitioner. 11. The examination of the witnesses has started, and the statements of 13 witnesses were recorded till 19.3.2025. The matter was listed on 23.4.2025 for recording the statements of witnesses mentioned at Serial Nos. 13 and 1 to 4 in the supplementary charge sheet. The certified copy of the order sheet dated 23.4.2025 has not been filed, and it is not known what happened on that day. Hence, it cannot be said that there is no progress in the trial, and the delay is attributable to the request made by the petitioner. Since the petitioner cannot take advantage of his own wrongs, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail on the ground of delay in trial. 12. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had raped a minor and impregnated her, the offence is heinous and the petitioner cannot be released on bail. 13. Hence, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court in case the trial is not concluded within a reasonable time. 14. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.