Vaneet Kumar vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest, for helping his friend to forcibly establish coitus with a girl aged 17 years, has come up before this

Court seeking regular bail on the grounds that there is no direct or indirect evidence connecting the petitioner to the alleged crime.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 13.10.2020 Ld.

Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court (under POCSO Act), Kangra at Dharamshala, HP, dismissed the petition because of the nature of the

offence.

The bail petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinod Gupta, leanred counsel for the

bail petitioner states on instructions that the petitioner has no criminal past relating to the offences prescribing sentence of seven years and more, or

when on conviction, the sentence imposed was more than three years. The status report also does not mention any criminal past of the accused.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 3.8.2020, the Investigating Officer of Police Station, Dharamshala recorded statement of

the victim, aged 17 years, under Section 154, Cr.PC. The victim complained that she was a student of Class +2 and her date of birth is 24.8.2003. She

stated that in January, 2020, she befriended Sandeep Kumar alias Shallu on facebook and thereafter, they also started talking on phone. On 4.7.2020,

she had gone to Nagrota due to some personal work, where Sandeep Kumar met her. She had to return back to her home but she did not find bus and

on this, Sandeep Kumar, who had a scooty with him, offered to drop her to her home. At about 1.00 p.m. when both of them had crossed Nagrota,

then Sandeep parked the scooty on the side of the road. Thereafter, both of them went down in the forest and started talking. After 5-7 minutes, six

boys came there and one of them was Parvesh Kumar. The victim knew Parvesh Kumar ,as they met in a marriage at village Massal and they also

remained in touch on mobiles for some time. When these boys came there, then first of all, they slapped the victim as also Sandeep Kumar. After that,

they forced the victim to undress. Subsequently, accused Ravi Kumar aged 6 years started making her video, when she was nude. When due to

shame, she started to raise her salwar and tried to cover her face, then they threatened her to show her face and put off the salwar. Due to fear, she

did it and other boys were beating Sandeep Kumar. Sandeep told them to leave him as he serves in Army. Subsequently, they left Sandeep and then

Ravi closed the video making. Parvesh and other four boys (Rohit A-2, Munish A-5, Vaneet A-4 and Akshay A-1), who were talking with each other,

caught hold of Sandeep. Thereafter, Ravi Kumar, who was the eldest among all of them, caught hold of her arm and took her in the shrubs on the

side. He forced to undress her and committed rape upon her. When she opposed, then he gave slaps to her. When he was forcibly establishing coitus

with her, at that time, other boys had caught hold of Sandeep and as such, Sandeep could not help her. Later on, all of those persons left and

threatened them that in case they revealed this incident to anyone, then the video clip so made, would be made viral. After that, Sandeep dropped her

home and she did not disclose it to anyone. Subsequently, Parvesh made a phone call to her and told her that his friend wanted to meet her. Parvesh

also sent her the video clip, which they had made on that day and told her that in case she did not come, the video would be made viral. However, she

refused to go. In between Parvesh told her that Ravi, Rohit, Munish and Akshay were residents of village Bhangali, Post Office Jharet Jagiyan.

Because of the fear that the video would go viral, she kept quiet. Based on this information, 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. Mr. N.S.

Chandel, Senior Advocate states that the petitioner has no role.

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:

The victim did not say that it was Vaneet, who had committed rape upon her but she specifically stated that he alongwith Rohit, Munish and Akshay

caught hold of her friend Sandeep Kumar and due to that reason, Sandeep could not save her from being raped by Ravi Kumar. The conduct of the

accused to ensure that one of his accomplice take advantage of the isolation of a young girl with a boy and forced her to establish coitus with him,

would not enttle him for bail.

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.

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.

The petition dismissed.