Satish vs State Of H.P

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Petitioner has preferred this petition, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 120 of 2019, dated 29.11.2019, registered

under Sections 363, 366A, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as

‘POCSO Act’) in Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan H.P.

As per status report, filed on behalf of respondent, prosecution case is that on 29th November, 2019, mother of victim had submitted a complaint to

police stating therein that her third child, (victim, aged about 14 years) who was living at home was missing since 19th November, 2019 and despite

making all efforts with nears, dears and relations, she was not traceable and it was suspected that one Satish (petitioner), brother of friend of her

daughter, might have kidnapped her after alluring her. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR in question was registered and thereafter on the basis

of location of mobile/SIM numbers, victim and petitioner were traced in Jubbal, wherefrom they were brought back to Parwanoo. Victim was handed

over to her parents and petitioner was arrested.

It is further stated in status report that statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded before the Magistrate. During interrogation

as well as in statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., victim had stated that she was serving in a Company and Pooja, sister of petitioner, was

also working in same Company. Both were friends and she had acquainted with petitioner through Pooja and they had become Facebook friends also

and they were chating and meeting with each other and one day, father of victim had seen both of them together and thereafter, her mobile phone was

snatched by her father, however, the same was returned after some time and thereafter also, they (victim and petitioner) had been meeting with each

other and on 19.11.2019, with intention to marry with petitioner, she had accompanied petitioner on her own volition and they had solemnized marriage

in Mahasu Devta temple and thereafter, they were living at Jubbal as husband and wife and had started to earn their livelihood and the petitioner was

doing the job of driver, whereas, she was working as labourer. She has further stated that on 5.2.2020 her father along with police had reached Jubbal

and thereafter, she had accompanied her father to Parwanoo.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is not a case of violation of person of victim forcibly or alluring her or inducing her to expose on false

assurance of marriage, but, it is a case where, as also evident from statement of victim, petitioner and victim have solemnized their marriage and they

were living and are willing to live as husband and wife and marriage solemnized by them is not invalid but voidable, but it has not been declared so by

any competent Court of law.

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that considering the age of victim and also the heinous crime committed by petitioner, he is not

entitled for bail.

6..Without commenting upon the rival contentions of parties and without evaluating the statements and other material on merit, I find that it is a fit

case, where the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, he is ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of

Rs.30,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court within two weeks from today and also subject to further

conditions enumerated hereinafter, in addition to other or further conditions imposed by trial Court as deemed fit by that Court:-

(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available during investigation as well as the trial on each and every date 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 her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. She shall not, in any manner, try to overawe

or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) That he shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation as well as trial;

(iv) That he shall not jump over the bail;

(v) That he shall inform, in writing, regarding change of address, land line number and/or mobile number, if any, in advance, to concerned Police

Station.

(vi) That the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected or the commission of which he is

suspected;

(vii) That petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner;

(viii) That he shall not leave the country without prior permission of Court.

It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing any such other or further 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 condition imposed upon them, 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 18.3.2013.

Any observation made in this order shall not affect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application

filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

It is directed that trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of order and can verify the same from High Court Website and from Registry before

accepting the bail bonds to be furnished by petitioner.

Petition stands disposed of. Dasti copy on usual terms.