Bobby @ Babli vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, who is brother of sister-in-law of the victim, who at that time was just 14 years of age and is in judicial incarceration, on being

arraigned as an accused in FIR No.144 of 2015, dated 24.12.2015, registered under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in the file of Police Station, BSL Colony Sundernagar, District Mandi,

H.P., disclosing non bailable offences, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking regular bail.

Status report stands filed. I have seen the status report as well as the police file to the extent it was necessary for deciding the present petition, and

the police file stands returned to the police official.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.

Prior to the present bail petition, the petitioner had filed a bail petition under Section 439 CrPC, before learned Special Judge, Mandi, HP. However,

vide order dated 26.12.2019, passed in Bail Application No. 286 of 2019, the Court had dismissed the same.

The father of the victim told the police that on 15.12.2015, his daughter went to school at 9.00 a.m., but instead of going to the school, the petitioner

allured her and took her away to some unknown place under the pretext of marriage. On such complaint, the police initially registered the FIR under

Section 363 and 366 IPC. In September, 2019, the victim returned to her home. After that the police took her to judicial magistrate, who recorded her

statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. In her statement, she stated that the accused-bail petitioner herein kept her with him for three years and

continuously indulged in sexual intercourse with her. This led to addition of Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act against the accused. The

police arrested the accused on 27.9.2019 from Mohali, Punjab.

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon two decisions of a Coordinate Bench of this Court reported in Jagdish Chand vs. State of

Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (2) Shim.LC 967 and Dinender Morya vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018(2) Shim.LC 983.

There can be no doubt that in both the cases this Court had granted bail to the accused who were facing prosecution for indulging in coitus with

minor girls. However, present case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the judicial precedents on the ground that the bail petitioner is brother of

sister-in-law of the victim.

Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per his instructions the victim, who is now major is married to some other

person.

Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Ld. Additional Advocate General contends that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may be a threat to the life of the

victim and as such in case he is released on bail it may resulted in very serious consequences.

The mere fact that the victim stands married may put her life and that of her husband to peril and high risk, in case the petitioner is released on

bail, at this stage. Even if this Court imposes restriction that during the period of bail, the petitioner shall stay at a considerable distance from the place

of residence of the victim, the Court still cannot give a finding or assurance that the accused is not likely to visit the area where she is residing and put

her life to any risk.

On this ground alone, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.

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. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.