Karam Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest, for raping a minor child aged 13 years, 2 months and 16 days, has come up before this Court under

Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 14.6.2018,

learned Special Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P, dismissed the petition because the heinous nature of the offence.

The bail petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Sandeep Chauhan, learned counsel for the bail petitioner states on instructions that the

petitioner has no criminal past relating to the offences prescribing sentence of seven years and more, or when on conviction, the sentence imposed

was more than three years. The status report also does not mention any criminal past of the accused.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 1.5.2018, the SHO of Police Station, Pachhad and Sarahan received a written complaint

against the accused, wherein a 13 years old girl, alleged that she is a student and study in Nainatikker school. On the day of the incident, she had not

gone to school and was at home with her sister. Her mother had gone to her job. At 3-3:30 daytime, when her sister had gone to lintel/roof of the

house and was listening songs on her mobile phone and she was watching TV in the room, Karam Chand, who also stays with her brother-in-law,

came there. He asked for water. When she went inside the room to bring water, he suddenly came and bolted the room from inside. He caught hold

of her from her arm and gagged her mouth. After that, he made her lie on the bed and took off her clothes. Thereafter, he committed forcible coitus

with her. On hearing her shrieks, her sister-in-law came there across the road and knocked the door. Thereupon, she was able to rescue herself from

Karam Chand and unbolted the door. Then, her sister-in-law snatched her from the room and bolted the door of the room, confining Karam Chand in

the room itself. Then, the victim informed her sister-in-law about the sexual act. After sometime, her brother also reached home and they made a

complaint to the police on telephone, which led to registration of the FIR mentioned above. The police started conducting investigation and arrested the

accused on the same day. On next day, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.PC. The investigation further revealed that

the real brother-in-law of the victim is Pawan Kumar who works as a Driver of Karam Chand and due to this reason the victim also used to call

Karam Chand as Jijja. On number of times, Karam Chand would visit the house alone and on that day he had also come to their house where her

sister-in-law gave him food. At that time, her sister was listening the songs by plugging in the earphones. The investigation further revealed the age of

the victim as 13 years, 2 months and 16 days. The police got medical examination of the victim wherein the scientific evidence was collected and

subsequently sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. The Laboratory deducted human semen on the vaginal swab, her Pajama and underwear of the

victim.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a first offender and incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave

injustice to the petitioner and family.

On the contrary, learned Deputy Advocate General contends that offence is heinous, accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail is likely to

send a wrong message to the society.

REASONING:

The scientific evidence has already established the sexual intercourse with a girl aged just 13 years. The presence of the semen reveals that the

accused not only penetrated, but also ejaculated in the vaginal canal. The accused is aged 33 years, a married man and was guest in the house where

he allegedly raped a child. As such, he is not entitled to bail.

Counsel for the petitioner has also made several other arguments. Still, given that this Court is not inclined to grant bail, on the reasons mentioned

above, discussion of the same will be an exercise in futility. Any detailed analysis of the evidence may prejudice the case of the prosecution or the

accused.

Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, at this stage, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail. The petition is

dismissed with liberty to file a new bail application.

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.

The petition is dismissed.