Pradeep Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

7/2019

10.3.2019

WOMEN P.S. SOLAN

376, 509, IPC & S.6, POCSO ACT

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest, for sexually exploiting his two minor daughters, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed the following bail petition:

(a)Bail application No.11-S/22 of 2021, which was dismissed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Solan, H.P. on 22.7.2021.

The bail petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Vipin Pandit, 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 the victim, who was under depression, informed the counselor that her father had raped her on two occasions. She also disclosed that her father had also raped her elder sister. Other details are needless to mention. Based on these allegations, the Police registered the FIR mentioned above.

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.

REASONING:

The evidence has started but the petitioner did not annex the statements with the petition. Be that as it may, given the gravity of offence, this is not a fit case for grant of bail.

Ld. 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.

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.

Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a new petition on the same cause of action or different grounds.