Baldev Raj Goel vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

FIR No.,Dated,Police Station,Sections

13,31.01.20 21,"Majra, District Sirmour, HP","363, 366A, 376, 370A of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO

Act and Sections 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention)

Act, 1956

would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.,,,

On the contrary, Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Ld. Additional Advocate General, has opposed the bail on the role of the accused in forcing a vulnerable",,,

minor girl into flesh trade.,,,

The possibility of the accused persons influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing",,,

justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench",,,

held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.",,,

REASONING:,,,

Earlier the petitioner had filed bail petition No.Cr.MP(M) No.681 of 2021, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15.06.2021, in the",,,

following terms:-,,,

“Baldev Raj Goel alias Banty (A-3)’s bail application is CrMPM No. 681 of 2021. There are no specific grounds for bail. Per the victim’s,,,

supplementary statement recorded under section 161 CrPC, she had noticed his frequent visits in the room of her stay. The allegations are that A-3",,,

was working as a pimp to Shallu, and he had brought the customers. Petitioner was so insensitive that he did not even bother to sell an adolescent for",,,

carnal pleasure, to make money for his family. The victim is a minor, and the burden is on the petitioner to make out a case for bail. A reading of the",,,

bail petition does not make out any case for bail. Given above, CrMPM No. 681 of 2021 is dismissed at this stage.â€​",,,

Now the petitioner has again come up before this Court by filing the present bail petition.,,,

As far as arguments of Mr. Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is no call detail between the petitioner and the alleged",,,

customers, which absolves him of any offence, is concerned, is not sufficient to grant bail. This is for the reason that the possibility of the petitioner",,,

using some other phone numbers to make such calls, cannot be ruled out. Given the specific allegations of the victim and conduct of the petitioner,",,,

who sold a minor girl for money, do not entitl him for bail.",,,

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.",,,

Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a new",,,

petition on different grounds.,,,