Rakshpal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors

Virender Singh, J

Applicant­Rakshpal has filed the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No. 49/2025, dated 28.03.2025, registered under Sections 123, 332(c) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the BNS) and Sections 6 and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act), with Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P.

The complainant, as well as, the child victim, in the present case, have been impleaded as respondents No. 2 and 3, vide order dated 28.11.2025.

According to the applicant, he is innocent person and falsely been implicated, in the present case. He has no concern whatsoever with the alleged crime, for which, he has been named, as an accused and arrested.

The applicant has earlier tried his luck by moving the similar application before the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track POCSO Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., which was dismissed vide order dated 05.05.2025. Thereafter, he has again moved the bail application before the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track POCSO Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 18.06.2025.

It is the further case of the applicant that the investigation of the present case is stated to be complete and according to the applicant his custodial interrogation is no longer required by the police.

Apart from this, it has also been pleaded that the chances of conclusion of the trial against the applicant, will take sufficient long time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in the judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period.

The applicant has given the details of criminal cases, in para 10 of the application, in terms of which, the following cases are registered, against him:­

“1. FIR No. 71/2011, dated 06.07.2011, under Sections 376, 498­A IPC, Police Station Baijnath;

FIR No. 68/2015, dated 14.05.2015, under Sections 279, 337 of IPC and Section 185 of MV Act, (convicted) Police Station Baijnath;

FIR No. 112/2024, dated 11.10.2024, under Section 20 of ND&PS Act, Police Station Baijnath; and

FIR No. 04/2025, dated 04.01.2025, under Section 20 of ND&PS Act, Police Station Baijnath.”

Apart from this, the applicant has given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

On the basis of above facts, Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has prayed that the bail application may be allowed.

When, put to notice, respondent No. 1­State has filed status report, whereas, respondents No. 2 & 3 i.e. complainant, as well as, the child victim, put appearance and prayed that their case be pleaded by the learned Additional Advocate General.

As per the status report, on 28.03.2025, complainant (respondent No. 2) appeared before the police of Police Station Baijnath, and moved a complaint disclosing therein that child victim, is her son, aged about 16 years and studying in XXX school at YYY.

1 On 26th March, 2025, complainant had gone to her relation and child victim was all alone at his house. The neighbour of the complainant inquired from her on phone, as one person under the influence of liquor was inquiring about the child victim. Consequently, the complainant called the child victim, with a request to close the door, but according to the complainant, said person forcibly entered their house. On hearing the noise, their neighbour came there and forced the said person to leave the spot.

11.2 The complainant came back in the evening. Child victim disclosed to her that the said person was Rakshpal son of Kaptan Singh (applicant) and applicant has also threatened the child victim on phone by saying that in case, he will not come to him, till 9:00 pm, then, he will forcibly take him away. On further inquiry, child victim, on hearing the name of Rakshpal, became frightened.

11.3 According to the complainant, from the last few days, child victim (respondent No. 3), remained absent for two – three hours. On repeated inquiry, child victim disclosed to his mother that Rakshpal (applicant) forcibly called him to his house, where he gave liquor & cannabis to consume and do obscene acts with him.

11.4 It is further case of the complainant that the child victim told her that applicant used to tell the child victim that his wife had left the matrimonial home and allured the child victim to solemnize marriage with him. Rakshpal (applicant) used to do obscene acts with him and sometimes remove his clothes. He has touched the private part of the child victim with his mouth. He has touched his private part and also made a kiss upon his private part. Sometimes, he forcibly put the hand of the child victim on his private part.

11.5 According to the complainant, on the night of 25th March, 2025, when she was not present at her home, Rakshpal (applicant) called the child victim and done the obscene acts with him and made efforts to have physical relations with him.

11.6 With these averments, complainant (respondent No. 2) has prayed that action be taken against said Rakshpal. On the basis of the above facts, police registered the case under Sections 6 and 10 of POCSO Act and criminal machinery swung into motion.

11.7 Investigation was conducted by ASI Jai Singh, Police Post Chadiyar. During investigation, the statement of the child victim was recorded in the presence of his mother. Accused was nabbed and was arrested at about 8:30 pm. He was medico legally examined at CH Baijnath and physical evidence was collected and taken into possession.

11.8 On 29.03.2025, accused was produced before the Court of learned JMFC Palampur, from where, he was remanded to four days police custody. During investigation, spot was identified by the child victim. On the basis of further revelation made by the child victim, Sections 123, 332(C) and 351(2) of BNS were added, in this case.

11.9 On 01.04.2025, the child victim was produced before the Court, where his statement under Section 183 of BNSS was got recorded. After completion of investigation, charge­sheet was filed before the Special Judge, (Fast Track Court) POCSO, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

11.10 The police has also reasserted the criminal history of the applicant in the status report.

11.11 Lastly, it has been apprehended that applicant is a very clever person and in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, he may coerce the witnesses and allure them to depose in his favour. It has further been apprehended that in case, applicant is released on bail, he may not be available for the trial.

11.12 As per the status report, 15 PWs have already been examined on 01.12.2025 and case is now listed for recording the statement of PW­16, on 22.12.2025.

Considering the fact that the learned trial Court has framed the charges against the applicant and prosecution has examined, as many as, 15 witnesses, till date, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in the judicial custody.

So far as the criminal history of the applicant is concerned, out of the four cases registered against him, although, in one of the cases, mentioned at Sr. No. 2 i.e. FIR No. 68/2015, dated 14.05.2015, under Sections 279, 337 of IPC and Section 185 of MV Act, registered with Police Station Baijnath, the applicant has been convicted and two cases are pending. In such situation, on account of the conviction, which has been recorded under Sections 279, 337 of IPC and Section 185 of MV Act, the applicant cannot be made to bear the sting of the conviction, which was recorded in another offence.

Moreover, no efforts have been made by the police by moving appropriate application(s), for cancelling the bail granted in other cases.

The accused (applicant) is presumed to be innocent, unless proven guilty, as such, the applicant cannot be kept in the judicial custody, that too, for the indefinite period. The presumption of innocence is still available to the applicant, as the bail application cannot be rejected merely as a matter of punishment, since, pre­trial punishment is prohibited under the law.

The applicant is permanent resident of District Kangra, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, he may not be available for the trial.

So far as the apprehensions, which have been expressed by the police in the status report, are concerned, for those apprehensions, reasonable conditions can be imposed.

Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.

Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency of trial, arising out of FIR No. 49/2025, dated 28.03.2025, under Sections 123, 332(C), 351(2) of BNS and Sections 6 and 10 of POCSO Act, registered with Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. on his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/­, with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:­

a) The applicant shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing the appropriate application;

b) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

c) The applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissearchsuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

d) The applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

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.

It is made clear that respondent­State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found violated by the applicant.

The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, Lala Lajpat Rai, District Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala H.P., through e­mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e­prison software.

In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of Jail, Lala Lajpat Rai, District Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala H.P., is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Kangra at Dharamshala. The Superintendent of Jail, Lala Lajpat Rai, District Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala H.P., is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court.