Noop Ram @ Shakti vs State Of H.P

Virender Singh, J

Applicant-Noop Ram @ Shakti has filed the present application, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’), for releasing him on bail, during the pendency of trial, in case FIR No. 34 of 2023, dated 18.05.2023, registered with Police Station Sainj, District Kullu, H.P., under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’)

According to the applicant, he is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated. According to him, he is a married person and has been blessed with a child. According to him, the allegations levelled against him are false and he has no criminal history.

The applicant has also asserted that he is having deep roots in the society and ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court, in case, ordered to be released on bail.

The applicant has earlier tried his luck before the learned Special Judge-I, Kullu District Kullu H.P. by filing a bail application, however, the said application was dismissed by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 31.07.2023.

On the basis of above facts, Mr. B.L. Soni, learned counsel for the applicant has given certain undertakings, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case ordered to be released on bail.

When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein that on 18.5.2023, the complainant Smt. Leelawanti along with child victim (name withheld in order to protect her identity) filed a written complaint before In-charge, Police Station, Sainj, alleging therein that she is permanent resident of village Narad P.O Dhaugi, Tehsil Sainj, Distt. Kullu, H.P. She is having six children. The child victim, who is 17 years of age is her younger daughter. The child victim disclosed her that bail petitioner Noop Ram alias Shakti, on the pretext of marriage, is committing sexual intercourse with her for the last one year in his quarter at Sainj. The complainant has prayed to take legal action against the bail petitioner.

6.1. On the basis of aforesaid complaint made by complainant, police swung into action. During investigation, the child victim was got medically examined at CH, Banjar. The Medical Officer took the preservatives, which were taken into possession by the police along with her MLC. Thereafter, bail petitioner was interrogated and arrested on TESTED 18.5.2023 at 9:25 p.m. Medical examination of the bail petitioner was also got conducted by the police at CHC. Sainj. His preservatives and MLC were also procured by the 1.0. On the identification of the child victim, the spot was inspected by the I.O. Consequently, spot map was prepared. From the spot, scientific evidence was also taken into possession. Statements of witnesses under Sec. 161 Cr. P.C were recorded.

6.2. An application was moved by the LO to the Secretary of G.P. Dhaugi for issuance of birth certificate of the child victim, who informed the police that record pertaining to their Panchayat has been remitted to RH, Kullu Thereafter, from RH, Kullu, birth certificates of both the child victim and bail petitioner were procured, as per which, the age of the child victim was found to be 17 years and that of accused was found to be 24 years, respectively. Thereafter, the statement of the child victim under Sec. 164 Cr. P.C was got recorded on 19.5.2023.

6.3. The physical evidence collected by the doctors at the time of medico legal exmaination of both the child victim and of bail petitioner were sent to RFSL, Mandi. Similarly, the preservatives taken by the doctor at the time of abortion of the fetus of child victim, blood sample on FTA card were also sent to RFSL, Mandi for DNA profiling and on the receipt of the RFSL report(s), 1.0 completed the other formalities in the case and prepared the challan and presented the same in the Court.

It is the further case of the police that the case is now fixed for consideration on charge on 22.08.2023. As per stand taken by the police in the status report is concerned, the child victim is aged about 17 years, whereas, the applicant is aged 24 years. The foetus of the child victim has also been aborted and the samples have been preserved for DNA profiling. The DNA report has also been received.

The effect of the DNA report will be proved during the course of trial as it is the sole prerogative of the trial Court to look into the evidence adduced by the prosecution. No doubt, the investigation, in the present case, is complete, but, it does not mean that the applicant is entitled for bail merely on this ground. While deciding the question of bail, a delicate balance has to be maintained between the individual liberty of a person and the larger interest of the society.

The release of the applicant will give a wrong signal to the society that after committing, such a serious offence, the applicant is still moving freely in the society.

The complainant has leveled allegations against the applicant by naming him as a person who had ravished her daughter, whose age has been mentioned as 17 years. Considering the fact that the child victim at the age of 17 years was forced to undergo the trauma of being ravished and thereafter to abort the fetus, the release of the applicant will also give a wrong signal to the society.

Considering all these facts, the applicant has not been able to make out a case for releasing him on bail. As such, the application is dismissed.

Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail application.