SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Deepak Singh vs State Of H.P. R To on 20 September, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

               CrMP(M) No. 921 of 2018

.

                Reserved on:  30.08.2018

Decided on:    20.09.2018

Deepak Singh …Petitioner

      Versus

State of H.P. r to …Respondent

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the petitioner:      Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr.   Shiv   Pal   Manhans   and   Ms.
Rameeta Kumari, Additional Advocate

Generals,   with   Mr.   Raju   Ram   Rahi,
Deputy Advocate General.

Inspector Mamta, SHO Women Police
Station   Nahan,   present   in   person
alongwith record.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. 

Petitioner   has   preferred   this   petition   under

Section  439  of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
2

referred to as ‘CrPC’) for grant of bail in case FIR No. 3 of

2018, dated 19th  May, 2018, under Sections 376, 511, 201,

.

34, 177 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as

‘IPC’), Section 4 of the  Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’)

and Section 3 (1) (w) (ii) of SC  ST Act, registered at Police

2. to
Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P.

For enlarging the petitioner on bail, it has been

canvassed that the petitioner has been implicated falsely in

present case without any allegation or evidence against him;

he has no role in commission of offence and there is change

in version of the statement of the complainant with regard

to manner in which alleged offence was committed.  Further

that even if prosecution case is considered to be true, there

is   nothing   on   record   to   infer   that   the   petitioner   has

committed the alleged offence and it is a case of no evidence

against the petitioner and, therefore, the rejection of bail by

the learned Sessions Judge vide order, dated 12 th July, 2018,

is unwarranted, whereas, keeping in view the entire facts

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
3

and circumstances of the case, particularly, the statement of

prosecutrix, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

.

3. Before dealing with the case in hand, it is apt to

refer to the principles laid down and factors culled out by

the apex Court, required to be taken into consideration at

the time of consideration of bail applications by the Courts.

4.

Some   of   the   principles   evolved   in   various

pronouncements of the apex Court are as under:

1. Grant   of   bail   is   general   rule   and   putting   a
person in jail or in a prison or in correction home
during trial is an exception and presumption of

innocence, i.e. person is believed to be innocent
until   found   guilty   is   fundamental   postulate   of

criminal   jurisprudence.     But,   these   principles

are   not   applicable   in   cases   where   there   is
reverse onus and/or statutory presumption with

regard to commission of offence.  Such cases are
to   be   dealt   with   differently   keeping   in   view
statutory   presumption   and   reverse   onus
provided   under   the   relevant   statute.     (See
Dataram   Singh   versus   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh
and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22, para 1)

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
4

2. While making  a general statement  of law that
the   accused   is   innocent,   till   proved   guilty,   the

.

statutory provisions of relevant Act, like Section

29   of   the   POCSO   Act,   have   to   be   taken   into
consideration which provides for presumption as

to commission of any offence under Sections 3, 5,
7 and 9 of the Act.     (See  State of Bihar versus
Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav

alias Rajballabh Yadav, (2017) 2 SCC 178, para

22)r

3. Each   criminal   case   presents   its   own   peculiar

factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds
peculiar   to   a   particular   case   may   have   to   be
taken into account by the Court.  The Court has

only to opine as to whether there is prima facie
case against the accused.   The Court must not

undertake   meticulous   examination   of   the

evidence   collected   by   the   police   and   comment
upon   the   same.     Such   assessment   of   evidence

and   premature  comments   are  likely   to  deprive
the accused of a fair trial. (See  Kanwar Singh
Meena versus State of   Rajasthan and another,
(2012) 12 SCC 180)

4. A bail application is not to be entertained on the
basis of certain observations made in a different
context.  There has to be application of mind and

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
5

appreciation   of   the   factual   score   and
understanding   of   the   pronouncements   in   the

.

field.   (See  Virupakshappa   Gouda   and   another

versus State of Karnataka and another, (2017) 5
SCC 406, para 14)

5. It   has   also   to   be   kept   in   mind   that   for   the
purpose   of   granting   bail,   the   legislature   has

used   the   words   “reasonable   grounds   for
believing” instead of “the evidence” which means
the court dealing with the grant of bail can only

satisfy   itself   as   to   whether   there   is   a   genuine

case   against   the   accused   and   that   the
prosecution will be able to produce prima facie
evidence   in   support   of   the   charge.     It   is   not

expected,   at   this   stage,   to   have   the   evidence
establishing   the   guilt   of   the   accused   beyond

reasonable   doubt.     (See  Virupakshappa   Gouda

and   another   versus   State   of   Karnataka   and
another, (2017) 5 SCC 406, para 16; CBI versus

Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452)

6. The Courts are not oblivious of the fact that the
liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being.
It is founded on the bedrock of the constitutional
right and accentuated further on human rights
principle.  It is basically a natural right.  In fact,
some regard it as the grammar of life.   No one

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
6

would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all
the wealth of the world. People from centuries

.

have   fought   for   liberty,   for   absence   of   liberty

causes   sense   of   emptiness.     The   sanctity   of
liberty is the fulcrum of any civilised society.  It

is   a   cardinal   value   on   which   the   civilisation
rests.  It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and
immobilised.   Deprivation of liberty of a person

has   enormous   impact   on   his   mind   as   well   as
body.  A democratic body polity which is wedded
to rule of law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a

pregnant and  significant  one,  the liberty  of an

individual is not absolute.   [The] society by its
collective   wisdom   through   process   of   law   can

withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an
individual when an individual becomes a danger

to the collective and to the societal order.  Accent
on   individual   liberty   cannot   be   pyramided   to

that   extent   which   would   bring   chaos   and
anarchy   to   a   society.     A   society   expects

responsibility   and   accountability   from   its
members, and it desires that the citizens should
obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social
norm.     No   individual   can   make   an   attempt   to
create a concavity in the stem of social stream.
It   is   impermissible.     Therefore,   when   an
individual behaves in a disharmonious manner

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
7

ushering   in   the   disorderly   things   which   the
society disapproves, the legal consequences are

.

bound to follow.   At that stage, the court has a

duty.     It   cannot   abandon   its   sacrosanct
obligation and pass an order at its own whim or

caprice.   It has to be guided by the established
parameters   of   law.   (See  Neeru   Yadav   versus
State of U.P., (2014) 6 SCC 508, para 16; Rakesh

Ranjan   Yadav   versus   CBI,   (2007)   1   SCC   70,
para 16; Masroor versus State of U.P., (2009) 14
SCC 286, para 15; Ash Mohammad versus Shiv

Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another, (2012)
9   SCC   446,   paras   10     25;   Chandrakeshwar
Prasad alias Chandu Babu versus State of Bihar

and another, (2016) 9 SCC 443 paras 10, 11)

7.  Detailed examination of evidence and elaborate

documentation   of   merits   of   the   case   are   to   be

avoided.   (See  Puran   versus   Rambilas   and
another,   (2001)   6   SCC   338,   para   8;  Kalyan

Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC
528: (SCC pp. 535­36, para 11); Vinod Bhandari
versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 15 SCC
389, para 13; Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit
versus State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458,
para 2.)  Consideration of details of the evidence
is   not   a   relevant   consideration.     While   it   is

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
8

necessary   to   consider   the  prima   facie  case,   an
exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case

.

should be avoided by refraining from considering

the merits of material/evidence collected by the
prosecution.     (See  Anil   Kumar   Yadav   versus

State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2018) 12 SCC
129, para 15; and Criminal Appeal No. 1175 of
2018,   titled   The   State   of   Orissa   versus

Mahimananda   Mishra,   decided   on   18th
September, 2018)

8. It is not necessary to go into the correctness or

otherwise   of   the   allegations   made   against   the
accused as this is a subject matter to be dealt
with  by   the   trial  Judge.     (See  Dataram   Singh

versus   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   and   another,
(2018) 3 SCC 22, para 16)

9. Where prima facie involvement of the accused is
apparent, material contradictions in the charge

sheet   are   required   to   be   tested   at   the   time   of
trial   and   not   at   the   time   of   consideration   of
grant   of   bail.   (See  Lt.   Col.   Prasad   Shrikant
Purohit versus State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11
SCC 458, para 28)

10. Probability   or   improbability   of   the   prosecution
version has to be judged based on the material

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
9

available to the court at the time when bail is
considered and not on the basis of discrepancies.

.

(See  Anil   Kumar   Yadav   versus   State   (NCT   of

Delhi) and another, (2018) 12 SCC 129, para 21)

11. The   Court   granting   bail   should   exercise   its

discretion   in   a   judicious   manner   and   not   as   a
matter of course and reasons for grant of bail in

cases involving serious offences should be given.
(See  Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan
(2004)   7   SCC   528:  (SCC   pp.   535­36,   para   11);

Dipak Shubhashchandra  Mehta versus Central

Bureau   of   Investigation   and   another,   (2012)   4
SCC 134, para 32; Vinod Bhandari versus State
of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 15 SCC 389, para13;

Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit versus State of
Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458, para 29)

12. At   the   time   of   assigning   reasons   in   order   to
grant/refuse bail, there should not be discussion

of   merits   and   demerits   of   the   evidence.     (See
State   of   Bihar   versus   Rajballav   Prasad   alias
Rajballav   Prasad   Yadav   alias   Rajballabh
Yadav, (2017) 2 SCC 178, para 15)

13. Giving   reasons   is   different   from   discussing
evidence/merits and demerits. (See Puran versus
Rambilas and another, (2001) 6 SCC 338, para

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
10

8; State of Bihar versus Rajballav Prasad alias
Rajballav   Prasad   Yadav   alias   Rajballabh

.

Yadav, (2017) 2 SCC 178, para 15)

14. Under Section 439 CrPC, the Sessions Court and
the   High   Court   has   concurrent   jurisdiction   to

grant bail.  Therefore, an application filed before
the   High   Court   under   Section   439   CPC,   after

rejection of an application filed before Sessions
Court   under   the   said   Section,   is   definitely   a
successive   application   and   is   not   a   revision   or

appeal   against   rejection   of   bail   application   by

the Sessions Court.

15. An   accused   has   a   right   to   make   successive

applications   for   grant   of   bail,   the   court
entertaining   such   subsequent   bail   applications

has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds
on   which   the   earlier   bail   applications   were

rejected.  In such cases, the court also has a duty
to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to

take a view different from the one taken in the
earlier   applications.   (See  Lt.   Col.   Prasad
Shrikant Purohit versus State of Maharashtra,
(2018) 11 SCC 458, para 30)

16. The period of incarceration by itself  would not
entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail.   (See

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
11

Anil Kumar Yadav versus State (NCT of Delhi)
and   another,   (2018)   12   SCC   129,   para   24;

.

Gobarbhai   Naranbhai   Singala   versus   State   of

Gujarat   (2008)   3   SCC   775,   para   22   and   Ram
Govind   Upadhyay   versus   Sudarshan   Singh,

(2002) 3 SCC 598, para 9)

17. Filing of charge sheet establishes that after due

investigation   the   investigating   agency,   having
found materials, has placed the charge­sheet for
trial of the accused persons. (See Virupakshappa

Gouda   and   another   versus   State   of   Karnataka

and another, (2017) 5 SCC 406, para 12)

5. The  relevant  factors  to be  kept  in mind  at  the

time of consideration of bail applications are as follows:

(1)  Satisfaction   of   the   Court   in   support   of   the
charge as to whether there is any prima facie

or   reasonable   ground   to   believe   that   the
accused had committed the offence;

(2)   Nature and gravity of the accusation/ charge;

(3)  Seriousness of the offence/crime and  severity
of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(4) Nature and character of supportive evidence;

(5)  Character,   conduct,   behaviour,   means,
position and standing of the accused;

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
12

(6) The Courts must evaluate the entire available
material   against   the   accused   very   carefully;
circumstances   which   are   peculiar   to   the

.

accused   and   the   Court   must   also   clearly

comprehend  the  exact  role  of  the  accused  in
the case;

(7) The cases in which accused is implicated with
the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian
Penal   Code,   the   court   should   consider   with
even   greater   care   and   caution   because   over
implication in the cases is a matter of common

knowledge and concern;

(8) Position and status of accused with reference
to   the   victim   and   witnesses   to   assess  the

impact that release of accused may make on

the   prosecution   witnesses   and  reasonable
apprehension   of   the   witnesses   being
influenced or tampered with or apprehension
of   threat   to   the   complainant/   witnesses   and

possibility of obstructing the course of justice;

(9)  The antecedents of the applicant including the

fact as to whether the accused has previously
undergone   imprisonment   on   conviction   by   a

Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(10) likelihood   and   possibility   of   the   accused’s

likelihood   to   repeat   similar   or   the   other
offences;

(11) A reasonable possibility of the presence of the
accused   not   being   secured   at   the   trial   and
danger   of   the   accused   absconding   or   fleeing
from justice;

(12)  Impact   of   grant   of   bail   on   the   society   and
danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by
grant   of   bail   affecting  the   larger   interest   of
the public or the State;

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
13

(13)   While   considering   the   prayer   for   grant   of
anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck

.

between   two   factors   namely,   no   prejudice

should   be   caused   to   the   free,   fair   and   full
investigation and there should be prevention
of   harassment,   humiliation   and   unjustified

detention of the accused;

(14) Impact   of   grant   of   anticipatory   bail
particularly   in   cases   of   large   magnitude
affecting a very large number of people;

(15) Whether the accusations have been made only
with the object of injuring or humiliating the
applicant by arresting him or her;

(16)   Frivolity   in   prosecution   should   always   be
considered   and   it   is   only   the   element   of
genuineness that shall have to be considered
in the matter of grant of bail and in the event

of   there   being   some   doubt   as   to   the
genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal
course of events, the accused is entitled to an

order of bail;

(17) No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are
no   hard   and   fast   rules   regarding   grant   or
refusal of bail, each case has to be considered

on its own merits. The matter always calls for
judicious exercise of discretion by the Court.

(See   ­  Gurcharan   Singh   v.   State   (Delhi
Admn.)   (1978)   1   SCC   118;   Gurbaksh   Singh
Sibbia versus State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC
565;   Prahlad   Singh   Bhati   v.   State   (NCT   of
Delhi) (2001) 4 SCC 280; Puran v. Rambilas
(2001) 6 SCC 338;  Ram Govind Upadhyay v.
Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598; Chaman
Lal versus State of U.P. and another, (2004) 7

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
14

SCC 525; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528, para 11); Jayendra
Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N., (2005)

.

2   SCC   13,   para   16);  State   of   U.P.   v.

Amarmani   Tripathi,   (2005)   8   SCC   21,   para
18;  Prashanta   Kumar   Sarkar   versus   Ashis
Chatterjee   and   another,   (2010)   14   SCC   496;

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus State
of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694;
Prakash   Kadam   versus   Ramprasad
Vishwanath   Gupta,   (2011)   6   SCC   189;
Kanwar   Singh   Meena   versus   State   of

Rajasthan   and   another,   (2012)   12   SCC   180;
Anil   Kumar   Yadav   versus   State   (NCT   of
Delhi)   and   another,   (2018)   12   SCC   129;
Criminal Appeal No. 1175 of 2018, titled The

State of Orissa versus Mahimananda Mishra,

decided on 18th September, 2018)

6. In present case, FIR against the petitioner has

been registered under Section 4 of POCSO Act.  In Section 4

of POCSO Act, punishment for commission of offence under

Section 3 of the said Act has been provided and with respect

to commission of offence under Section 3, a presumption of

guilt  has  been provided  under   Section 29  of  the  said  Act,

which reads as under:

“29. Presumption as to certain offences.
­  Where   a   person   is   prosecuted   for
committing   or   abetting   or   attempting   to
commit   any   offence   under   sections   3,   5,   7
and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court
shall   presume,   that   such   person   has

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
15

committed   or   abetted   or   attempted   to
commit   the   offence,   as   the   case   may   be
unless the contrary is proved.”

.

7. Perusal   of   the   status   report   filed   and   record

produced   by   the   prosecution   reveals   that   prosecutrix   has

approached   the   Police   Post   Kachaa   Tank,   Nahan   in   the

midnight between 18th­19th  May, 2018, without lower inner

wear and salwar, but, wearing shirt only and covering her

lower body with dupatta  (chunni)  and  narrated that after

taking her examination at Paonta Sahib, before returning to

Nahan,   where   she   was   residing   in   the   house   of   a   retired

Principal as maid, her friend Sunil met her, who took her

with one another boy on a bike and violated her person and

was asking her to spent the whole night with him, but, on

her   refusal,   he   retained   her   salwar   and   bag   and   did   not

return the same despite repeated requests, compelling her to

left the place without salwar covering her lower body with

dupatta (chunni) and to start for Nahan on foot and she also

signalled to stop the vehicles, but, no one stopped except a

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
16

private   bus   in   which   she   came   to   Kachaa   Tank   Police

Chowki, Nahan.

.

8. As per prosecution case, she was provided clothes

by   the   police   and   was   taken   to   Women   Police   Station,

Nahan,   where   FIR   was   registered   on   19 th  May,   2018,

whereafter, she was taken to the Magistrate on 20 th  May,

2018   and   her   statement   under   Section   164   CrPC   was

recorded   wherein   she   further   disclosed   that   she

accompanied Sunil and another boy Ghodu on the bike and

boarded   the   truck   alongwith   them   where   a   third   boy,

namely Aman Sharma @ Ojas was also present and in the

presence   of   Ghoru   and   Aman   Sharma   @   Ojas,   Sunil   had

violated her and, thereafter, the two boys, i.e. Ghoru (second

boy) and Aman Sharma @ Ojas (third boy) had also tried to

violate her forcibly, who had also taken her lower inner wear

and   salwar   to   compel   her   to   submit   herself   to   their   lust

forcibly.     However,   with  great   difficulty,  she  jumped   from

the truck to save her, but, accused persons kept her clothes

with them causing her to come to Nahan after covering her

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
17

lower   body   with   her   dupatta,   in   a   private   bus   and   to

approach Police Post Kachaa Tank at Nahan, where police

.

had   provided   clothes   to   her   and   at   that   time,   she   was

perplexed and  under  duress  causing  disclosure  of  place  of

occurrence   as   a   forest   near   Shambhuwala   whereas   the

occurrence had taken place in the truck.  

9.

In the meanwhile, police had also obtained CDR

of   telephone   number   of   accused­Sunil   supplied   by   the

prosecutrix   and   on   the   basis   of   call   details,   two   persons,

namely Sachin and Aman @ Ojas were called by police for

investigation where Aman @ Ojas has disclosed the incident

in the same manner as has been disclosed by the prosecutrix

in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and also

disclosed the registration number of the truck involved in

the incident and name of its driver (second boy – Ghoru) as

Deepak   Singh,   and   Sachin,   who   has   also   been   cited   as   a

witness in the challan, a driver of another truck, has stated

that   on   the   day   and   at   the   time   of   incident,   he   was   also

going towards Khanna whereto petitioner­Deepak Singh had

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
18

loaded his truck and on noticing petitioner­Deepak  Singh,

he   had   tried   to   contact   the   petitioner   by   signalling   and

.

calling him  to stop. But,  petitioner­Deepak  Singh had not

stopped the truck.   From his statement, the version of the

prosecution is, prima facie, corroborated.

10. Immediately after the incident, prosecutrix had

approached the police whereupon FIR was registered on 19 th

May,   2018,   and   soon   thereafter,   on   20th  May,   2018,

statements of prosecutrix, under Sections 164 CrPC and 161

CrPC,   were   recorded.     On   the   basis   of   CDR,   police

interrogated Aman @ Ojas and Sachin whereafter Aman @

Ojas and Sachin were summoned and thereafter, petitioner

was apprehended from Khanna and was brought to Nahan,

where, after preliminary interrogation, he was arrested.

11. Plea   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner,

that there is no allegation against the petitioner and it is a

case of no evidence against him, is not in consonance with

the   material   on   record.     Veracity   of   the   statements   and

impact of disclosure of half truth by the prosecutrix, at the

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
19

first instance, and revelation of the entire story before the

Magistrate   is   yet   to   be   considered   by   the   trial   Judge.

.

However, prima facie, there is evidence on record connecting

the   petitioner   with   the   alleged   offence   under   Section   376

IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act read with Section 34 IPC

so   as   to   facilitate   the   commission   thereof   and   also   with

12. to
regard to an attempt on his part to commit the same offence.

As per birth certificate of prosecutrix on record,

her date of birth is 25th  October, 2001  and at the time of

incident,   she   was   16½   years   old.     As   evident   from   her

statement,   she   accompanied   Sunil   and   petitioner   at   her

own, but, keeping in view the evidence on record with regard

to   her   age,  prima   facie,  it   appears   that   her   consent   was

immaterial.   So far as the alleged role of the petitioner is

concerned, he facilitated the violation of the person of the

prosecutrix by Sunil and thereafter, tried to compel her to

allow her violation by him and Aman @ Ojas also and for

pressurizing   her,   they   kept   her   lower   apparels,   including

inner   wear,   with   them   and   on   refusal   to   accede   to   their

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
20

demand,   when   prosecutrix   jumped   out   of   the   truck,   even

then, her clothes were not returned to her, rather, she was

.

left on the road in the dark night.  As per material on record,

during   investigation,   at   the   instance   of   the   petitioner,

sandals/chappals   of   prosecutrix   were   recovered   from   the

truck in which the alleged offence was committed and was

13. to
being driven by the petitioner.  

Prosecutrix,   aged   about   sixteen   years,   without

her lower apparels, was left alone on the Highway by the

petitioner   and   his   companions   during   dark   night   hours.

Facing   such   a   situation,   the   trauma   suffered   by   the

prosecutrix was more than sufficient to get perplexed to tell

half truth to the police, at the first instance, as it was a case

where she herself had opted to accompany her friend Sunil,

without   realizing   the   consequences   thereof   likely   to   be

followed on account of the mind set of persons accompanied

by   her   who   consider   her,   being   a   female,   an   item   for

enjoyment,   nothing   more   than   that.     Such   mind   set   of

petitioner and his co­accused, prima facie, is reflecting from

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
21

their behaviour and manner in which they abandoned the

prosecutrix   on   her   refusal   to   accede   to   their   demand   of

.

sexual favour perhaps thinking that in such circumstance,

prosecutrix may not dare to report the matter.

14. Further,   during   investigation,   on   verification,

name of the petitioner was found to be Rohan Singh and the

were not found to be correct.

r to
name   and   address,   disclosed   by   him   during   interrogation,

15. Nothing   has   been   brought   to   the   notice   of   the

Court from the material on record or otherwise causing the

prosecutrix to implicate the petitioner falsely in the present

case.  It is true that pre­trial imprisonment cannot be used

as   substitute   to   the   punishment   without   scrutiny   of   the

evidence by the trial Court, but, at the same time, in a case

where   a   girl   was   abandoned   in   a   situation,   as   discussed

above, grant of bail to the petitioner, at this stage, may also

have   an   adverse   impact   on   the   society.     Petitioner   has   a

right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,

but, the provision of reverse onus under Section 29 of the

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
22

POCSO Act has also to be given due weightage.  Balance has

to be maintained between the personal and societal interest.

.

16. Further, challan is pending for consideration of

charge before the trial Court and is stated to be listed on 24th

September, 2018.   Petitioner had also approached learned

Sessions Judge for bail by way of application under Section

439 CrPC on 11th  June, 2018, which was dismissed on 12 th

July, 2018 and immediately thereafter, present petition has

been filed on 25th  July, 2018.   Learned Sessions Judge has

considered the entire material on record and has declined to

release the petitioner on bail by passing a reasoned order.  I

find no infirmity or perversity in the order passed by him.

From the date of rejection of the bail of the petitioner by

learned   Sessions   Judge   till   date,   there   is   no   change   in

circumstances and no fresh ground persuading this Court to

take   a   view   different   from   the   view   taken  by   the   learned

Sessions Judge has been pointed out.

17. In view of above, considering cumulative effect of

entire   facts   and   circumstances,   without   commenting   upon

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP
23

the merits of the evidence and keeping in view the principles

laid down by the apex Court and other factors, like nature of

.

offence,   manner   in   which   it   has   been   committed   and   its

impact on the society, petitioner is not entitled for bail, at

this stage.  Hence, the petition is dismissed.

   

September 20, 2018
                 (rajni)
r to       (Vivek Singh Thakur)
            Judge

22/09/2018 22:58:31 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation