AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 739 words:
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
Status report has been filed, which is perused and taken on record.
By way of this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a prayer has been made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 175 of 2018, dated 09.07.2018, registered at Police Station Manali, District Kullu, HP, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The case of the petitioner is that a false complaint stood lodged against him, on the basis of which, FIR in issue was registered and pursuant to the lodging of the said FIR, the petitioner is in custody since 09.07.2018.
Mr. Lakshay Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the investigation, which has been carried out post lodging of the FIR, does not suggests the involvement of the petitioner vis-a-vis the offences alleged, and otherwise also, as the petitioner is in custody since 9th July, 2018, and the investigation is complete, the petitioner can be ordered to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Court may deem fit because no purpose is going to be achieved by keeping the petitioner in custody. On these bases, he has prayed that present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
Opposing the bail petition, Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that taking into consideration the gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioner, no case for releasing the petitioner on bail is made out. He further submitted that similar petition filed by the present petitioner before the Court of learned Special Judge, Kullu, stood dismissed vide a reasoned order dated 16.10.2020 and learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any substantial change in the circumstances, as from the date of rejection of bail petition by the learned Special Judge, Kullu and the date of filing of the present petition so as to warrant release of the petitioner on bail. He further submitted that the trial is at a crucial stage as statements of the prosecution witnesses are to be recorded from 09.05.2021. The petitioner happens to be citizen of Nepal, there is each and every possibility that in case he is ordered to be released on bail, he may jump the bail or he may influence the witnesses. On these grounds, he has prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the status report as well as order passed by learned Special Judge, Kullu, dated 16.10.2020, dismissing the bail petition of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for release on bail. There is merit in the contention of learned Additional Advocate General that the offences, which are alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, are indeed grave offences, and in these circumstances, there is a possibility that in the event of the petitioner being released on bail, he may either try to influence the prosecution witnesses or keeping in view the fact that he happens to be a resident of Nepal, he may jump the bail and evade the trial itself. Even otherwise, the offences which are alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are not only against a minor victim, but a victim, who at the relevant time, was only five years old. In this view of the matter and further taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has not been able to point out any substantial change in circumstances as from the date when the bail petition filed by the present petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stood dismissed by the learned Special Judge, Kullu, and now, this bail petition is dismissed.
At this stage, a request has been made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that an observation be made that trial be expedited by the learned Court below. In my considered view, this is a genuine prayer so made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, it is observed that needful shall be done by the learned Special Court to have the trial concluded as expeditiously as possible.
The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.