Pinku Kumar @ Bunty vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Anoop Chitkara, J

For indulging in coitus with the prosecutrix, a minor girl, the petitioner, who is under arrest, on being arraigned as an accused in FIR No.06 of 2018,

dated 8.2.2018, registered under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012, in Police Station, Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P., disclosing non bailable offences, has come up before this Court under Section

439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking regular bail.

Status report stands filed. I have seen the status report as well as the police file to the extent it was necessary for deciding the present petition, and

the police file stands returned to the police official.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.

Prior to the present bail petition, the petitioner had filed a bail petition under Section 439 CrPC, before learned Special Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan,

HP. However, vide order dated 9.7.2020, passed in Bail Application No. 139/22 of 2020, the Court had dismissed the same.

FACTS

The gist of the First Information report and the Investigation is as follows:

(a) The brother of the victim vide complaint dated 8.2.2018, informed the SHO Police Station, Sangrah that the victim, who is 17 years of age and

residing with him, studies in Class 10th, has left home for Dogri on 6.2.2018, in the morning at 9.00 am for some personal work, however, she did not

return home. Upon this he conducted frantic search for his sister and came to know that people had noticed her at 3.00 p.m. along with one boy

named Bunty, the petitioner, herein.

(b) After this the complainant made a phone call to Bunty on his mobile number and Bunty showed ignorance about the victim. On repeated calls,

Bunty told the complainant that his sister has gone to Chopal with one of his relatives. The complainant apprehended that Bunty has confined her in

the house of his relative under the pretext of marriage. On 7.2.2018, the said Bunty made victim speak to the complainant and the victim told the

complainant that she is unaware of her location. Based on this information the police registered FIR.

(c) After this the police recovered the bail petitioner along with the victim on 9.2.2018 at a place called Timbi. The victim told to the Police that the

bail petitioner under the pretext false of marriage had allured her to accompany him on 6.2.2018 and had taken her to a relatives’ place where he

committed rape upon her. The victim further told that the accused is already married and has a daughter aged nine months. After that the police took

the victim to CHC Sangrah for medical examination. The doctor during the medical examination also preserves swabs and other scientific evidence

from the victim. After the police also got the accused medically examined and collected scientific evidence. The said scientific evidence was sent for

chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga. The Laboratory on examination did not detect semens on any of the exhibits, however,

they detected blood from the vaginal slides of the victim as well as pubic hair of the pants of the accused which was sufficient for further blood

grouping.

Mr. N.K. Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that statements of 14 witnesses including that of victim already stand recorded. Learned

counsel further submits that after recording the statements of witnesses, he had filed bail petition before learned trial Court, who vide order dated

9.7.2020, did not grant bail to the petitioner. Thus, that is how, he has approached this Court seeking bail.

Notwithstanding the rejection of the bail by the trial Court, in case this Court gives any findings on merits in this bail petition, where in the trial, the

prosecution evidence is almost complete and it is only for the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and defence evidence, if any, left to be

recorded, then it is likely to influence the outcome of the judgment in either ways. Thus this Court is not inclined to interfere, however, given the nature

of evidence, it shall be open for the bail petitioner to request the trial Court to expedite the trial or even to approach this Court under appropriate

provisions of law for appropriate directions to expedite the trial.

Given above, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to file a fresh petition for grant of bail before the learned Trial Court, if he so desires.

Resultantly, the petition is dismissed.

Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the

matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.

Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.