Surjan Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.351/2021, dated 02.11.2021, registered under Sections 354A, 354D & 506 of the Indian Penal Code

(IPC), Section 12 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Sections 66 & 67 of the Information Technology (IT) Act at

Police Station Balh, District Mandi.

Briefly put the prosecution case is that:-

2(i). On 02.11.2021, mother of the prosecutrix lodged a complaint with the police. She stated therein that on 30.10.2021, a girl from her village

informed her that she had seen objectionable photographs of complainant’s daughter on social media/facebook. The complainant enquired about

the matter from her daughter. Her daughter/prosecutrix informed the complainant that the bail petitioner had been harassing her since long. He had

also written a threatening letter for establishing physical relations with her, or else he would defame her and would get her father murdered. The

victim/prosecutrix also showed screenshot of the letter to her mother statedly written by the petitioner. On the basis of this complaint, FIR was

registered on 02.11.2021. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on 07.11.2021. The petitioner was arrested on 07.11.2021.

2(ii). During investigations, it came out that the bail petitioner was a teacher in a school, where the prosecutrix was a student in 10th class during the

year 2016. The bail petitioner had uploaded certain objectionable photographs of the prosecutrix on the facebook at that time. On reporting the matter,

he was shunted out from the school at the relevant time. Subsequently also, the bail petitioner had been harassing the prosecutrix off and on.

2(iii). As per the status report, the bail petitioner prepared fake facebook ID of the prosecutrix on his mobile. After editing some photographs of the

prosecutrix and morphing them, the same were made viral from that facebook ID. He also wrote threatening letters to the victim for establishing

physical relations with him. According to status report, prosecutrix’s date of birth is 26.11.2000, which makes her 21 years old.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bail petitioner and complainant’s family are not on good terms. They have inimical relations

ever since the year 2016. That petitioner’s wife had also addressed a complaint to the Pradhan of the concerned gram panchayat on 24. 08.2016,

regarding the threatenings advanced to her family by the complainant’s family. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited attention to

Annexure P-2, stated to be a compromise between the bail petitioner and the family members of the complainant. The said compromise was statedly

executed in August/September, 2021, whereunder both sides resolved to live peacefully, in lieu of which the bail petitioner also assured for not taking

any action on the complaint filed by him. Learned counsel further submitted that investigation in the matter is now over. No fruitful purpose will be

served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars any further. He also submitted that the petitioner will not contact the complainant or her family

members including the prosecutrix in any manner, whatsoever. That the petitioner will not threaten, induce or influence the prosecution witnesses in

any manner, whatsoever. He further submitted that the petitioner will abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed upon him by this

Court in case he is enlarged on bail.

Learned Additional Advocate General opposed the grant of bail on the ground of gravity of charges levelled against the petitioner. He submitted that

the petitioner had been harassing the prosecutrix for past many years and therefore, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the status report.

The petitioner is facing accusations under Sections 354A, 354D & 506 IPC, Section 12 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act,

2012 — Section

Act and Sections 66 & 67 of the IT Act. No doubt from the evidence on record, prima facie case of involvement of the

bail petitioner with the offences alleged against him in the FIR is established, however, offences under Sections 354A and 354D are bailable. The

punishment for offence under Section 66 of the IT Act can extend to three years. Punishment under Section 67 of the IT Act on first conviction can

also extend to three years. Investigation in the matter is statedly complete. Challan has been presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction on

02.01.2022. The petitioner has completed more than three months in custody. Nothing incriminating remains to be recovered from him. Trial of the

case will take a long time. No criminal record of the petitioner has been indicated in the status report. He is aged 40 years and is resident of Village

Daundhi, Post Office Nagchala, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P., therefore, his presence can be ensured in the trial. Considering all the above

aspects, the present petition is allowed with stringent conditions that he will not have any contact with the complainant, victim and their family

members at all. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand only) with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court having jurisdiction over the Police Station

concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

(i). The petitioner shall join and cooperate the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.

(ii). The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever.

(iii). The petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iv). The petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer, complainant, her family

members including the prosecutrix or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or

any Police Officer. Petitioner shall not contact the complainant, the victim and their family members at all.

(v). In case the petitioner is put to trial, then he shall attend the trial on every hearing, unless exempted in accordance with law.

(vi). Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in

the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, E-mail,

PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any.

In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondent-State shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of

the bail. It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an

opinion on the merits of the matter. Learned Trial Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by any of the observations made

hereinabove.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

Copy dasti.