Ram Lal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest for exploiting and raping a minor girl for 4-5 months, has come up before this Court under Section 439

Cr.PC, seeking regular bail.

A perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner had earlier filed the bail petitions before High Court, which is permissible given the decision of a

three Judges Bench of HP High Court, in Mohan Lal v Prem Chand, AIR 1980 HP 36, (Para 9 & 15), wherein the Full bench holds that a person can

directly apply for an anticipatory bail or regular bail to the High Court without first invoking the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge, which were

registered as Cr.MP(M) No.1597 of 2019 and Cr.MP(M) No.1365 of 2020 and subsequently dismissed, as withdrawn by learned counsel, on 5.9.2019

and 14.9.2020, respectively.

In Para 13 of the bail application, the petitioner declares having no criminal history 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 Investigator recorded statement of the victim under Section 154 Cr.PC. She stated that in

the year, 2014, she was a student of 8th Class. In the month of December, 2014, her uncle (BUAIE), present petitioner, who stays downwards her

house, called her to his house. At that time, no person was present in the house. He took her inside the room, bolted the room and forcibly committed

sexual intercourse with her. She tried to cry, but the accused gagged her mouth. After committing the sexual intercourse, he threatened her that in

case she revealed this to anybody, then he would do away with her life. He further told her that in future whenever he would call her on phone, she

must quietly visit his house to have sex. Under that arrangement, he continued to call her for 4-5 months. After 3-4 months, she told the accused that

she had stopped menstruating. On this, he stated that he would bring medicine for her, but he brought nothing and asked her to marry someone else. In

between, one Manu, who is related to her Jijja, called her and talked to her for 2-3 days. He asked her to marry him. Under those circumstances, she

decided to solemnize marriage with Manu and they got married in Chauntra Landrunhi temple as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. After staying with her

in-laws for three months, she returned back to her maternal home, where she gave birth to a baby boy, who was fathered by Ram Lal. After 4-5 days

of her delivery, her aunt (BUA), Krishna Devi, wife of Ram Lal, talked to someone on telephone and on the next day one couple visited the house of

victim and told her that they were issueless and wanted to adopt that baby. On this, she handed over her son to them because her in-laws had asked

her not to bring the child to their home. She told that her parents are very poor and they were unable to take care of her. She further told that she did

not sell her child, but gave his adoption to an issueless couple. They had given her Rs.5,000/-, asking her to take care of her health, as she was very

weak. Based on this information, Police registered the FIR mentioned above.

After registration of the FIR, Police got the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC. Because the accused was away from his

house, as such, he could not be arrested till 28.1.2017, when he surrendered before the Police. During investigation, the Police traced the child and

collected his DNA material. Subsequently, DNA materials of the victim, accused and child were sent for DNA profiling. As per report of the

Laboratory, the victim was the biological mother of the child and Ram Lal was the biological father.

Learned 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 matter pertains to the year, 2017 and not only Police report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC stands filed, but even trial has commenced. Learned

counsel for the petitioner referred to certain statements and memos from the police report, prepared under section 173(2) CrPC, copies of which the

accused had duly received in compliance to S. 207 CrPC. However, the documents which the Ld. Counsel referred were neither filed with the

petition, nor its copies supplied to the Court and the State. Thus, the Court cannot base any finding on a document which is in the Counsel's brief and

not on the Court's file.

Simply based upon the status report, this Court cannot come to the conclusion about the age of the victim. Otherwise also, the scientific evidence

points out towards the accused.

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.

Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, at this stage, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail. The petition is

dismissed with liberty to file a new bail application.

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.

The petition dismissed.