Prem Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Present petition has been preferred for enlarging the petitioner on bail in case FIR No. 75 of 2020, dated 26.12.2020, registered under Sections 363,

376 of IPC and Section 6 of Prevention of Child from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), in Police Station Renukaji, District Sirmour, H.P.

FIR in present case has been registered at the instance of prosecutrix when she was living with accused in his house and had approached a Doctor

for her treatment who had found her pregnant and considering her age, had advised her to lodge the report with the Police before treatment and in

these circumstances prosecutrix had approached Police Station, Shilai on 25.12.2020 and at her instance Daily Diary Repat No. 29 was recorded.

On 26.12.2020, on the basis of statement of prosecutrix FIR was registered in Police Station Ranukaji. During investigation, prosecutrix was

medically examined and her pregnancy was confirmed, but her date of birth was found to be 2.4.2013 and, therefore, at the time of violation of her

person, she was found to be 17 years and 8 months old. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 28.12.2020 before the Magistrate,

wherein after narrating the entire incident and manner in which she and petitioner had come in contact and developed physical relations, she also

stated that she had reported the matter to the Police on asking of Doctor, who had refused to treat her without reporting the matter to the Police and

in her statement, in the last, she stated that she wanted to marry petitioner immediately after attaining the age of discretion.

On 8.4.2021, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner was released on interim bail. Prosecutrix has attained age of discretion on

2.4.2021.

It is claimed on behalf of petitioner that earlier marriage could not be solemnized for minority of prosecutrix, but physical relations with prosecutrix

were developed with sincere intention to marry her and there was no intention of the petitioner to commit any offence against the prosecutrix or to

spoil her and the relations were cordial between prosecutrix and the petitioner, but for comments of Aunt of petitioner, prosecutrix had gone alone to

the Doctor on account of misunderstanding between the petitioner and the prosecutrix and thereafter on asking of Doctor, prosecutrix had approached

the Police and with the police as well as before the Magistrate, prosecutrix had clearly stated that immediately after attaining the age of discretion, she

would marry with petitioner.

Now petitioner has produced certain documents on record, i.e. photocopies of Marriage Certificate, Parivar Register and Registration of Marriage

Certificate, indicating that petitioner Prem Singh, who is also known as Papu and prosecutrix have solemnized marriage and are residing together

under one roof in the house of petitioner. Copy of Certificate issued by Pradhan Gram Panchayat Kyari Ghundah along with copy of Family Register

of Gram Panchayat Kyari Ghundah has also been placed on record, wherein it is stated that marriage of prosecutrix and petitioner has been

solemnized on 19.4.2021 and thereafter name of prosecutrix has been entered as wife of petitioner Prem Singh at Sr. No. 10 of the family of Mansa

Ram, father of petitioner Prem Singh in Family Register.

In status report, it is stated that it has been verified from the petitioner, prosecutrix and Babu Ram, maternal uncle of petitioner, and also from the

temple as well as documents of Panchayat that petitioner and prosecutrix have married with each other and their solemnization of marriage in the

temple has also been recorded in temple record.

It is further submitted by the petitioner that present case is of love affair, but for age of prosecutrix, criminal case has been made out and registered

against the petitioner. He further submits that there was only 4 months gap for attaining the age of discretion by the prosecutrix and the affair, relation

and bonding between petitioner and prosecutrix has been proved to be of true love, as immediately on attaining age of discretion, prosecutrix has

married the petitioner.

Without commenting upon the merits of case, but considering the material placed before me, I am of the considered view that it is a case wherein

petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 35,000/- with one surety in the like

amount to the satisfaction of trial Court/Magistrate on duty at Nahan, on or before 24th July, 2021 and also subject to following further conditions:-

(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as

to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to

overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) that the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial;

(iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected;

(v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner;

(vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail;

(vii) that the petitioner shall keep on informing about the change in address, landline number and/or mobile number, if any, for his availability to Police

and/or during trial;

(viii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

(ix) Interim bail granted to petitioner vide order dated 8.4.2021 shall continue till 24th July, 2021 or till furnishing fresh bail bonds whichever is earlier.

It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioner as deemed

necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and thereupon, it will also be open to the trial Court to impose any

other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

In case the petitioner violates any conditions imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may

approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.

Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-

IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.

Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not affect merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the

bail application.

The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not insist for certified copy

of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Dasti copy on usual terms.