Vishal Rajput vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 01.03.2021 and by means of present petition, seeks regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

in FIR No. 56/2020, dated 01.05.2020, registered under Sections 354ÂD, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 12 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and Sections 66 and 67ÂA of the Information Technology Act, 2000, at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan,

H.P.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the status report filed by the respondentÂ​State.

3(i) The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged on 01.05.2020 by the father of the prosecutrix. The complainant stated therein that his

daughter was aged 16 years and student of 10th class. For the last 3Â4 days, an unknown boy had been calling and sending obscene messages to her

on her facebook account. The said boy had threatened & demanded her nude photographs. Under the influence of his threats, complainant’s

daughter (prosecutrix) sent her nude photographs through whatsapp to that unknown boy. The said boy (later on identified as bail petitioner) created a

fake facebook account in the name of the complainant’s daughter and uploaded her nude photographs in that account. It was further complained

that the petitioner had been threatening complainant’s daughter ever since.

3(ii) Investigation was carried out. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per

dateÂofÂbirth certificate obtained by the investigating agency, the prosecutrix was born on 21.02.2005 and thus was aged about 15 years on the date

of alleged incident. Call detail record was obtained. The mobile number in question was eventually traced to the bail petitioner, resident of District

Karnal, Haryana. The call detail record confirmed exchange of calls between the complainant’s daughter and the bail petitioner. As per the status

report, the investigation from the petitioner could not be carried out in the matter till 30.09.2020 owing to the CovidÂ​19 pandemic. On being summoned

by the investigating agency, the petitioner presented himself in the police station alongwith his father on 01.03.2021. He reportedly disclosed that he

and prosecutrix became facebook friends towards end of the year 2019. Both of them regularly chatted with each other. In February 2021, though

prosecutrix turned down his marriage proposal, however, chatting continued between them. At petitioner’s insistence, the prosecutrix sent her

nude photographs to him through whatsapp. Petitioner got frustrated when his marriage proposal was rejected for the second time by the prosecutrix.

He thereafter created a fake facebook account of the prosecutrix and uploaded her nude photographs in that fake account. However, after sometime,

he himself deleted that fake facebook account. Investigating agency arrested the petitioner on 01.03.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 01.03.2021 and has been cooperating with the investigating

agency. Investigation in the matter is complete. Challan stands presented, therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner is not required in the matter.

Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner will abide by all the conditions, which may be imposed upon him in case of grant of bail and that

he will neither influence the prosecution witnesses nor temper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.

Learned Additional Advocate General, while opposing the bail plea of the petitioner submitted that in case the Court is inclined to grant bail to him then

the same be made subject to stringent conditions.

Petitioner is accused of offences, which entail maximum sentence of three years. He has already completed about four months in custody. There is

no allegation in the status report about petitioner’s intimidating or threatening or indulging in any offence against the complainant’s daughter

subsequent to the lodging of the FIR on 1.5.2020. According to the status report, investigation from the petitioner could not be carried out till

30.09.2020 on account of CovidÂ19 pandemic. Thereafter, the petitioner was summoned for 01.03.2021 at the police station. The petitioner came to

the police station alongwith his father and cooperated with the investigating agency. He was arrested on 01.03.2021. Looking into the mode and

manner of commission of the offence including the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner and the fact that he is behind the bars for the

past four months, I am of the considered view that his further custody is not warranted in factual position of the case. The investigation is complete.

Challan stands presented before the competent Court. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The apprehension expressed in the status

report about the petitioner’s belonging to another State, therefore, the possibility of his threatening the complainant, prosecutrix and intimidating the

prosecution witnesses can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions. At present, this otherwise has to be viewed in light of the petitioner’s

previous conduct. There is no such allegation against him in the status report for past about one year, when he enjoyed the freedom despite lodging of

the FIR. This bail application is accordingly allowed.

Bail petitioner is ordered to be released in the above mentioned FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/Âwith two local

sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court having jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station, subject to the following

conditions:Â​

(i) Petitioner is directed to join the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. He shall fully

cooperate the Investigating Officer and will appear before him in the concerned police station as and when called in accordance with law;

(ii). Petitioner shall not temper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever. Petitioner shall not threaten or intimidate the

complainant, prosecutrix & her family members in any manner whatsoever.

(iii). Petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court;

(iv). Petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer 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;

(v). In case of launching of prosecutor, the petitioner 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, EÂmail,

PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any; &

(vii). In case in future, if the petitioner is found to be involved in any criminal activity then the instant bail is liable to be cancelled at the instance of

investigating agency.

In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondentÂState 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 main matter without being influenced by the above observations.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

Copy dasti.