Jaswinder Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Instant bail petition arises out of FIR No.13/2021, dated 30.01.2021, registered at Police Station Majra, District Sirmour, H.P., under Sections 363,

366A, 376, 370A of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Sections 5 & 7 of the Immoral

Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The petitioner seeks regular bail in the aforesaid FIR. There is further prayer in the petition that in the alternative, the

petitioner may be released on bail for limited period, i.e. from 07.02.2022 to 20.02.2022.

It appears from the record that Cr.MP(M) No.773 of 2021, filed by the petitioner alongwith four other bail petitions filed by other co-accused

persons in the above-numbered FIR, were decided on 15.06.2021. Petitioner’s bail petition was dismissed on merits after noticing as under:-

“3. A perusal of the police file reveals the following evidence:

a) On 30th January, 2021, victim's mother informed the SHO of Police Station Majra, District Sirmour, HP, that her daughter, aged around

16 years, had left home on 28th January, 2021 without informing anyone. Despite frantic searches in the houses of the relatives and other

places, they could not find her. She requested the Police to search for her daughter. Based on such information the police registered FIR

mentioned above for the offences of kidnapping.

b) On 31st January, 2021 the victim alongwith her mother, visited the Police Station Majra. After recording her statement under 161

Cr.P.C., the Investigator got her medical examination conducted in Civil Hospital Paonta Sahib. A female doctor examined her. In the

history narrated by the victim to the Doctor, she told her about sexual assaults from 28th to 30th January, 2021. She further informed the

Doctor that at the time of her examination, she was wearing the same underwear which she was wearing on the dates of assault. After

medical examination, Doctor also collected swabs from her private parts and took her clothes, including the underwear. Later on, the Police

sent the scientific evidence for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory. A partial report has already come, but the report about the

underwear does not form part of the Police file and must be awaited.

c) On 1st April, 2021, Investigator produced the victim before Judicial Magistrate, who recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

She stated that on 26th January, 2021 she had left her home because of a boy named Ajay. A month before that, when she had gone to her

sister's house, Ajay had met her. When she had gone out of the room for washroom during the night, Ajay intercepted and forced himself

upon her. He promised to marry her and warned her not to reveal the incident to anyone, and if she did so, then the video he has made of

the act would make it public.

d) Ajay handed over a mobile set to the victim and told her to talk with him through this phone. She took the phone and did not tell anyone

about it. On 25th January, 2021, when she was cutting grass along with her brother, the phone fell from her pocket. Her brother inquired

about this phone, and then she revealed to him that Ajay had given this phone to her. On this, her brother told the victim that she would

marry Ajay, and to this, she replied in the affirmative. Her brother told her to tell Ajay to visit their home and his parents and initiate the

talks of marriage and do the engagement. After that, on the asking of her brother, she called Ajay and told him everything and called him to

his home. Ajay told her that he, along with his parents, would visit her home the next day. However, he did not visit. She kept on waiting till

28th January, and on that day she left her home. Although she was afraid that her brother would scold her, he did not say anything to her.

e) She left home and went to Paonta Sahib, where she sat in a park. After some time, she started crying and then a lady approached her and

tried to console her. She revealed her name as Shalu and told the victim that she is very lonely and offered to stay with her. Believing that

Shalu would help her out, the victim agreed to accompany her to her home. However, Shalu was indulging in forcing girls into flesh trade

and was, in fact, a debauch.

f) At home, Shalu asked the victim to change clothes which she did. After that, she did her makeup and took her to a hotel, where two boys

came. Shalu took money from them and sent her along with one boy to the hotel's room, where he raped her. After fifteen minutes, he left the

room, and at that time, the second boy entered the room, and he also raped her. On 29th January, 2021 Shalu again did her makeup and

took her to a different hotel. In the said hotel, a boy came, and Shalu took money from him and locked the victim and the boy in the room,

where he raped her. The next day, Shalu called another boy who also raped her. After that, they returned to her home.

g) On 30th January, the victim's uncle came to know that she is in an escort company. Shalu also came to know that the victim's uncle is

aware of her location. Shalu asked the victim to leave the place for 3-4 days and, after that, to come again. Shalu refused to return her

AADHAR card, but she took it back from her and left her home.

h) The narration of her supplementary statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C reveals that she identified the rooms and told the

Investigator that during her stay with Shalu, a person named Banty would make frequent visits. She further narrated that Shalu had

addressed one of the rapists as Arun. The Investigator showed the pictures of the accused on a mobile app, and on seeing those

photographs, she identified Jaswinder Singh, Hukam Singh.

i) The Investigator arrested the accused and collected scientific evidence. After completion of the investigation, the Officer in Charge of the

Police Station filed the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, seeking prosecution of Shallu (A-1), Ajay Kumar (A-2), Baldev Raj Goel

alias Banty (A-3), Hotel Manager Arun Thakur (A-4), Jaswinder Singh (A-5), and Hukam Singh (A-6).

j) Based on this evidence, the State has launched prosecution against these accused persons.

4 to 9. ………………………………………………….

The bail petition of one of the customers who paid for sex with the minor is CrMPM 773 of 2021 Jaswinder Singh v. State. Per bail

petition, Jaswinder Singh (A-5) claims to be a carpenter. Ld. Counsel (without admitting and conceding) argued that he had done carpentry

work in the victim's house, and as such, he has been falsely implicated. The bail petition is silent about any reasons for false implication.

The logical conclusion of this argument is that despite knowing the victim, he, instead of saving her, raped her. On this kind of stand, the

petitioner is not entitled to bail. Consequently, CrMPM 773 of 2021 Jaswinder Singh v. State is dismissed.â€​

Subsequently, vide order dated 07.10.2021, passed in Cr.MP(M) No.1870 of 2021, the petitioner was granted interim bail for making arrangements for

wedding of his daughter for the period 10.11.2021 to 15.11.2021.

Not long thereafter, the petitioner preferred another bail petition, being Cr.MP(M) No.91 of 2022, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.01.2022

with the following order:-

Status report stands filed.

After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the instant petition, at this stage, with liberty

to file a fresh at an appropriate stage. Prayer being innocuous is allowed.

Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty reserved.

All pending applications also stand disposed of.â€​

A week later, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition yet again seeking regular bail or in the alternative, limited period bail. No change in the

circumstances has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of regular bail. Petitioner’s request for release on limited period

bail for making arrangements for his daughter’s marriage was allowed vide order dated 07.10.2021 passed in Cr.MP(M) No.1870 of 2021. In the

facts and circumstances, there is no justification for further releasing the petitioner on bail for limited period (07.02.2022 to 20.02.2022) for marriage of

his nephew stated to be scheduled for today, i.e. 07.02.2022.

Accordingly, the instant petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. However,

it is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an opinion

on the merits of the matter. Learned Trial Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.