Sunil 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 seeking his release, in case

FIR No. 87 of 2021, dated 31.05.2021, under Section 354 IPC and Section 10 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur,

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 permanent resident of

the place, thus neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by

keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 31.05.2021, police received an email, wherein the complainant, mother of the prosecutrix,

stated that one Sunil Kumar (petitioner herein) earlier used to tease her daughter, prosecutrix (name withheld), and on 30.05.2021 the prosecutrix

sobbingly narrated to her that at about 2 p.m. the petitioner tried to forcibly sexually molest her. When the complainant reported the incident to the

mother of the petitioner, she started abusing her. Upon, the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case under the apt sections and

the investigation ensued. Police visited the spot of occurrence and prepared the spot map. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the

prosecutrix was medically examined. On 31.05.2021 the petitioner was arrested and medically examined. Statement of the prosecutrix was also

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Police procured the records qua the date of birth of the prosecutrix. As per the police, the investigation is

complete and on 16.06.2021 challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court and now the case is listed on 15.07.2021. Lastly, it is prayed that the

bail application be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence. The petitioner, in case at this stage, enlarged on bail, may

tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the bail application may be dismissed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the

police reports, carefully.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the

petitioner is permanent resident of the place, thus neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He

has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when nothing remains to

be recovered at his instance, investigation is complete, even challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, the custody of the petitioner is not at

all required by the police, so the bail application may be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate

General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious offence. He has further argued that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this

stage, he may flee from justice or may tamper with the prosecution evidence, as the trial is yet to begin, so the bail application of the petitioner be

dismissed.

In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place, thus neither in a position to tamper

with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, nothing is to be recovered at his instance, custody of the petitioner is also not at all

required by the police, as the investigation is complete and challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, so the application be allowed and the

petitioner be enlarged on bail.

At this stage, considering the manner in which offence is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, the fact that recoveries have already

been effected, nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner or at his instance, the fact that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place,

thus he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the custody of the petitioner is not at all

required by the police, as the investigation is complete, challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, considering the fact that the petitioner

cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted,

and also considering all the facets of the case and without discussing the same elaborately at this stage, 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. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered

that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police in case FIR No. 87 of 2021, dated 31.05.2021, under Section 354 IPC and Section 10 of

POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing

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