Lekh Ram @ Suneel vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, aged 27 years, took the victim aged less than 16 years, who was friend of his sister, in a car and committed coitus with her, which

made her pregnant and later on she delivered a baby, has come up before this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C, seeking regular bail on the grounds

that he is willing to marry her.

A perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner filed the bail petition before High Court, which is permissible given the decision of a three Judges

Bench of HP High Court, in Mohan Lal v Prem Chand, AIR 1980 HP 36, (Para 9 & 15), wherein the Full bench holds that a person can directly apply

for an anticipatory bail or regular bail to the High Court without first invoking the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a

petition under Section 439 CrPC before this Court. However, vide order dated 06.10.2020, the same was withdrawn by the petitioner.

The bail petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Ld. 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 2.3.2020, victim had gone with her friend to Nalwar fair at Sundernagar. In the evening, the

petitioner, who is brother of her friend, volunteered to drop her at home in his car. Instead of taking her to home, he took her to an isolated place,

where in the night, he established coitus with her. After that he brought her back to her sister’s home. The victim kept mum. However, after one

month of the incident, she telephonically informed him that she has stopped menstruating. On this, he assured her not to worry and promised to marry

her. In between, the petitioner also got the pregnancy test of the victim conducted, to which, she was tested positive. He kept her assuring that there is

nothing to worry about and he would marry her. However, around one and half month ago, petitioner married somewhere else. The victim still kept

quiet, but 3-4 days ago, she started complaining pain in the abdomen, on which, her mother took her to hospital and on examination, the Medical

Officer informed her mother about her pregnancy. Based on these allegations, the Police registered the FIR mentioned above. After that on 6/7

December, 2020, she gave birth to a child in Kamla Nehru Hospital, Shimla. The doctors obtained FTA of the child, victim and that of the petitioner

and sent the same for testing to FSL, Junga. As per report of the laboratory, petitioner was found to be the biological father of the child and victim as

mother.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

On the contrary, the State contends that the Police have collected sufficient evidence against the bail petitioner. Another argument on behalf of the

State is that the crime is heinous, the accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail might send a wrong message to society.

It is not a case of romantic love where the accused-petitioner established coitus because of the passion of love. The narration of facts reveals that

the accused had met the girl for the first time during fair and late in the evening, he committed sexual intercourse with her. The love is not that

spontaneous that a girl would submit herself to a stranger within a few hours of meeting her. Once the victim stopped menstruating, then she

immediately brought it to the notice of the accused. Instead of resorting for abortion, he first of all checked the credibility of the victim and got the

pregnancy test done. Despite the fact that she was found to be pregnant in the test, still instead of bringing it to the notice of the family, so that she

would have gone for abortion, he gave her repeated assurances of marriage. The girl did not tell her pregnancy to her family under the belief that he

would come in her rescue. However, he married to someone else, leaving the pregnant girl in lurch

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.

This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation per law.

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 dismissed.