Sonu vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest for alluring and raping a minor girl, has come up before this Court seeking regular bail.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 28.11.2020,

learned Special Judge, Chamba, HP, dismissed the petition because the accused is a habitual offender.

The bail petition is silent about criminal history. However, the status report reveals that a large number of case are pending against him.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that the victim, who is aged 16 years, met the petitioner, for the first time around one and a half

month prior to 21.09.2020. He would call her and say that he loved her. He would also call her to meet him at Chamba. On this she left her home and

met the petitioner. He allured her and took her away with him to his home. She stayed there from 6th September to 18th September 2020, during

which period he established coitus with her on multiple occasions. On 19th September, 2020, when Sonu left home, then during his absence she ran

away and reached her home. After that accompanied by her parents and relatives, she visited police station, which led to registration of FIR

mentioned above and informed her plight. Based on these allegations, the Police registered the FIR mentioned above.

Ld. 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 accused is a proven habitual offender. Given his past conduct, the accused is likely to repeat the offense, the crime is heinous, the

accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail might send a wrong message to society.

REASONING:

In Sunny Kapoor v State of HP, CrMPM 2168 of 2020, (Para 9), this Court after considering the relevant judicial precedents observed that the pre-

trial incarceration needs justification depending upon the offense's heinous nature, terms of the sentence prescribed in the statute for such a crime,

probability of the accused fleeing from justice, hampering the investigation, criminal history of the accused, and doing away with the victim(s) and

witnesses. While considering bail, the Court has to maintain a balance between all stakeholders and safeguard the interests of the victim, the accused,

society, and the State. The primary purpose of bail is to secure the presence of the accused to attend the trial.

The nature of past history reveals that the involvement of accused in various cases including theft, drugs, assault, etc.

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.

Given above, the instant petition is dismissed.