Suresh Kumar 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 on the grounds

that he is in jail w.e.f. 8.11.2020.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 17.12.2020

learned Special Judge, Shimla HP, dismissed the petition because of the gravity of the offence.

In Para 9 of the bail application, the petitioner declares having no criminal history. The status report also does not mention any criminal past of the

accused.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 1.11.2020, on some information of a whistle blower, the police officials inspected the house

of one Brij Lal Puri. On search, they noticed a small girl, who was employed as a domestic help and belonged from Madhya Pradesh. On inquiry, she

disclosed her name as Sumantra. She further informed the police that before lockdown, she was brought to Shimla by the son of her uncle to do

household work in the house of Brij Lal Puri. Said Brij Lal Puri and his wife Aarti not only kept the victim in their house without the consent of her

parents but also did not inform the police about it. The victim cannot speak or understand Hindi. On this, the Police registered the FIR mentioned

above.

Subsequently, the victim was taken to IGMC for ossification test, where the doctors opined her age to be between 12 to 14 years. The police also

took into possession CCTV footage. The police was experiencing communication difficulty because the victim belongs to remote area of Madhya

Pradesh. After recording the statement of the victim under Section 161, Cr.PC, she was sent to Child Care Institute, Tuti Kandi. Subsequently, her

statement under Section 164, Cr.PC was recorded on 5.11.2020. After that, father of the victim and one relative visited Shimla and joined

investigation. On 7.11.2020 the father of the victim told the investigator that while interacting with her, she disclosed to him that she was sexually

exploited by Suresh Kumar (bail petitioner herein), who is employee of Brij Lal Puri. Upon this, she was sent to IGMC for medical examination and

MLC was procured. Investigation further revealed the age of the victim as 14 years. The genetic material obtained from the victim tested negative in

the absence of human semen on all the exhibits, however, the doctor opined that the possibility of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out.

Status report revealed that police has launched prosecution on 7.1.2021 by filing a complaint under Section 173(8), Cr.PC. Impliedly, report under

Section 173(2), Cr.PC was also prepared.

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

REASONING:

Given the fact that the investigation has been launched and as such, it is for the petitioner to make out a case for bail by referring to the documents

and evidence collected by the police. It is clarified that if the petitioner has not received copy of report prepared under Section 173(2), Cr.PC, then he

may apply for the same before the concerned Court under Section 207, Cr.PC. On receiving of the application, such Court, without any delay, shall

supply a copy of the same to the petitioner. At this stage, without referring to such documents, the petititioner has not made out a case for bail.

Learned 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 an appropriate bail application by referring to the documents upon which the petitioner is seeking bail.

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.

There would be no need for a certified copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order

alongwith the case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. In case the attesting officer or the Court wants to

verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

In the given facts, the instant petition is dismissed.