Rajender Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for releasing him on bail, in

case FIR No. 83 of 2018, dated 06.09.2018, under Sections 452, 376, 506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 4 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences (POCSO) Act, registered at Police Station Arki, District Solan, H.P.

As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place

and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail.

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 06.09.2018, the mother of the prosecutrix lodged a complaint with the police alleging that

on 05.09.2018, the prosecutrix was sleeping in a separate room, at about 12:00/1:00 (midnight), the cousin of the prosecutrix, whose house is next to

the house of the prosecutrix, came out from his house and saw a person running from their courtyard. The cousin of the prosecutrix apprehended him

and on asking, he disclosed that his friend, i.e. present petitioner, is inside the house of the prosecutrix. When the room of the prosecutrix was opened,

the petitioner was found hiding himself underneath the bed of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix told that the petitioner has forcibly committed wrong act

with her and also threatened her from disclosing the incident to anyone. Consequently, FIR No. 83 of 2018, dated 06.09.2018, under Sections 452, 376,

506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 4 and 17 of POCSO Act, came to be registered against the petitioner.

I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through

the record, including the reports of the police and statement of the prosecutrix, recorded before the learned trial Court, carefully.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution

evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is resident of the place, even otherwise also, the prosecutrix in her cross-examination has denied

the entire prosecution case, so the petitioner may be released on bail. Conversely, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the petitioner

was found involved in a serious offence and at this stage he may not be released on bail and his bail application be dismissed.

Heard. This Court has gone through the attested copy of the statement of the prosecutrix, as referred by learned Senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner, wherein, the prosecutrix in her cross-examination has not supported the case of the prosecution. At the same point of time, this

Court finds that as the petitioner is resident of the place and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee

from justice, he cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. So, taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and considering the

overall aspects of the case, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, is required to be

exercised in his favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in case FIR No. 83 of 2018, dated 06.09.2018,

under Sections 452, 376, 506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 4 and 17 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Arki, District Solan, H.P., on his

furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial

Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:

(i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required.

(ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iii) That the petitioner will 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 the Investigating Officer or Court.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.