Suresh Kumar vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner aged 28 years, incarcerating upon his arrest for alluring and raping a minor girl aged 17 years, has come up before this Court seeking

regular bail on the ground that he is in judicial custody w.e.f. 19.12.2020.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur

at Nahan HP, dismissed the petition.

The bail petition and status report do not show any criminal history.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that the victim is aged 17 years and 5 months. She states that on 17.12.2020, she went to Rajgarh

to buy medicines and after buying the same, when she was waiting for the bus at the new bus stand, the petitioner offered her ride back home in his

tempo. She sat with him and he took the vehicle towards Solan side, on which she enquired from him that why was he taking the vehicle to opposite

direction. On this he replied that he would take u-turn, but instead of taking u-turn, he stopped the vehicle upto 2 kms. on the side of the above road. In

the vehicle itself, he started fondling her, on which she cried. Thereafter, the petitioner said that if she would cry, then he would do everything with

her. On threatening, she became silent. After that, he proposed her to marry him, which she declined. Subsequently, he removed all her clothes and

established coitus with her. Later on, he returned to his home. The victim also returned to her home by bus and revealed this incident to her mother,

which led to the registration of the FIR mentioned above. Subsequently, the police recorded her statement under Sections 161 and 164, Cr.PC.

Thereafter, her medical examination was conducted.

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. Given that the crime is heinous, the

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

REASONING:

Although the age of the petitioner and victim is proximate to each other, but a perusal of the status report does not lead to any inference that for

how long, the victim knew the petitioner. The FIR has been filed on 17.12.2020 and the investigation is going on. Thus, based on this material, this

court cannot form an inference of the victim establishing coitus out of romantic love. The crucial factor, that whether the victim met the petitioner on

that day or she knew him before the incident, is silent. The burden is on the petitioner, which he has failed to discharge at this stage.

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 petition is dismissed.