SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Om Prakash vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 October, 2018


            Cr.MP(M) No. 1122 of 2018


                Decided on:    10.10.2018

Om Prakash 


State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent


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

Whether approved for reporting? 

For the petitioner:      Mr.Deepak Kaushal, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr.   Shiv   Pal   Manhans,   Additional

Advocate   General,   with   Mr.R.P.Singh
and   Mr.   Raju   Ram   Rahi,   Deputy
Advocate Generals.

ASI Bhupender Kumar, Police Station
Renuka Ji, District Sirmaour, H.P. is
present in person.

 Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge  (oral)

Petitioner has preferred present petition under 

11/10/2018 22:57:50 :::HCHP

Section  439  of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter

referred to as ‘CrPC’) for grant of regular bail in case FIR


No. 39 of 2017, dated 11th  September, 2017, under Section

376   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   (hereinafter   referred   to   as

‘IPC’) and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, (hereinafter referred to as POSCO), registered

2. to
at Police Station Renuka Ji, District  Sirmaur.

Brief   facts   of   the   case   are   that   on   receiving   a

telephonic call on 30.08.2017,that 19 years old prosecutrix

was bearing pregnancy of six months from the loins of some

villager, whose parents had administered her medicine for

abortion and it was further informed by the caller that in

the record of ‘Anganbari’,  age of the victim  was  18 years,

family of victim was approached by Mr.Rajender Singh and

Kumari   Vinita,   members   of   the   Child   Helpline,   Nahan,

District Sirmaur on 10.09.2017. Before that on 01.09.2017,

aforesaid information was also transmitted by Tara Verma,

Coordinator,Child Helpline, Nahan, in writing, to the SHO, 

11/10/2018 22:57:50 :::HCHP

Police Station, Renuka Ji, District Sirmaour. Thereafter, on

10.09.2017,   further   information   was   transmitted   to   the


Child Welfare Committee by Vinita, a team member, Child

Helpline, Nahan, reiterating the information sent to SHO,

Police   Station,   Renuka   Ji   and   stating   further   that   on

01.09.2017, the matter was reported to the police through e­

mail and on telephonic inquiry from Dadahu Police Station,

it   had   been   revealed   that   police   had   visited   the   house   of

child, but she was not found at home and statements of the

parents were recorded, copy whereof had also been supplied

to the Child helpline. Thereafter, on 08.09.2017, the Child

helpline   Team   received   date   of   birth   certificate   from   the

Panchayat Secretary, according to which, date of birth of the

female   child   was   30.12.2004.   It   is   further   case   of   the

prosecution  that  on  10.09.2017,  the  victim   along  with  her

mother   was   brought   to   Nahan   and   on   11.09.2017,   victim

was admitted in the hospital and on the very same day, her

mother   had   lodged   the   complaint   in   the   Police   Station,

Renuka   Ji,   alleging   therein   that   her   daughter   (victim)

11/10/2018 22:57:50 :::HCHP

disclosed her that the petitioner had violated the person of

her daughter in their fields about two months back, when


she had been grazing cattle in the forest. Thereafter, he had

threatened the victim that on disclosure of his act he would

die by consuming poison.

3. It is a matter of fact that the victim is a child of

first   marriage   of   her   mother   with   Gopal   Singh,   who   has

stated to the police that his marriage was solemnized with

Leela Devi about 14­15 years ago and Leela had cohabited

with him only for 1­2 months. Therefore, he is not having

knowledge   about   the   date   of   birth   of   the   victim.   Puran

Chand   is   the   second   husband   of   Leela   Devi.   According   to

him, Leela Devi had married him 13­14 years ago and at

that time, she was having a daughter from earlier marriage,

who is victim and at the time of his marriage, the victim was

about 2­3 years old, but her name had not been recorded in

the panchayat and in 2004, he had got her name registered

in the Family Register of his Panchayat. Leela Devi, mother

of victim has also deposed to the same effect with further

11/10/2018 22:57:50 :::HCHP

averments   that   on   account   of   tender   age,   her   and   her

daughter’s name was not entered in the panchayat of her


earlier husband and the victim was firstly sent to ‘Balbari’

and when she was grown up enough, she was admitted in

the school. She has shown her ignorance about the date and

time of registration of her name in the panchayat. As per

police report, sample sent for matching D.N.A. profile has

not been received yet. The alleged incident of early 2017 and

the petitioner is behind the bar since 11.09.2017. There is

also   a   letter   on  record,   sent   by   Tara   Verma,   Coordinator,

Child Helpline, to SHO, Police Station Renuka Ji, wherein it

is stated that on 30.08.2017, at about 9:30 a.m., a call was

received, disclosing therein that 19 years old victim, having

six   months   pregnancy   was   sometimes   disclosing   that   she

was   bearing    a   child   of   her   step   father   and   some   times

stating that the child belongs to loins of some person from

the   village.   Admittedly,   the   child   is   living   with   the   step

father.   From   the   record,   it   appears   that   police   has   not

investigated   the   angle   of   pregnancy   caused   by   the   step

11/10/2018 22:57:50 :::HCHP

father, as according to the police officer present in the Court,

the  sample  of  fetus,  and  for  matching  with D.N.A.  profile


with sample of blood of the petitioner, has only been sent. 

4. The veracity of allegations including the fact of

actual   age   of     the   victim   is   yet   to   be   established   by   the

prosecution   before   the   Trial   Court.   From   the   evidence   on

record, nothing can be said with certainty with respect to

the   age   of   prosecutrix   and   also   that   it   was   only   the

petitioner, who is responsible for causing pregnancy to the

victim  child.  The  delay  in  receiving  the  report  from  State

Forensic   Science   Laboratory   with   respect   to   matching   of

D.N.A. profile is also causing prejudice to the petitioner. It is

noticeable   that   before   intervention   of   Child   Helpline,

parents   had   not   reported   the   matter   to   police,   but   were

trying to abort. No doubt, under the POSCO Act, there is a

reverse onus on the accused to prove his innocence. But in

the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed

above, on the basis of record produced before me, I am of the

opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail.  

11/10/2018 22:57:50 :::HCHP

5. Therefore,   in   the   aforesaid   facts   and

circumstances, it would not be in the interest of justice to


keep the petitioner in judicial custody during pendency of

trial.    Accordingly,  petitioner  is  ordered to be  released  on

bail in case FIR No. 39 of 2017, dated 11 th September, 2017,

under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered

at   Police   Station   Renuka   Ji,   District     Sirmaur,  if   not

required in any other case, subject to his furnishing personal

bond in the sum of  ₹  50,000/­  with one surety in the like

amount, to the satisfaction of learned Trial Judge. 

6. Petitioner   shall   further   abide   by   the   following


(i)  That   the   petitioner   shall   make   himself

available   to   the   police   or   any   other
investigating   agency   or   Court   in   the
present case as and when required;

(ii) That   the   petitioner   shall   not   directly   or
indirectly   make   any   inducement,   threat
or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade him
from disclosing such facts to Court or to
any   police   officer   or   tamper   with   the
evidence.   He shall not, in any manner,

11/10/2018 22:57:50 :::HCHP

try to overawe or influence or intimidate
the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) That   he   shall   not   obstruct   the  smooth


progress of the trial;

(iv) That the petitioner shall not commit the
offence similar to the offence to which he

is accused or suspected;

(v) That the petitioner shall not misuse his
liberty in any manner;

(vi) That   the   petitioner   shall   not   jump   over
r the bail.

7. It   will   be   open   to   the   prosecution   to   apply   for

imposing   and/or   to   the   trial   Court   to   impose   any   other

condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts

and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.  

8. In   case   the   petitioner   violates   any   condition

imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled.  In

such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent

Court of law for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

9. Learned   Trial   Judge   is   directed   to   ensure

compliance of the directions issued by the High Court vide

communication No. HHC/VIG/Misc.Instructions /93­IV.7139

dated 18th March, 2013, as applicable.  

11/10/2018 22:57:50 :::HCHP

10. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore

shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and


will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application

filed under Section 439 CrPC.

11. Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

Copy dasti.


October 10, 2018
r to       (Vivek Singh Thakur)

11/10/2018 22:57:50 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

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

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