INTHEHIGHCOURTOFHIMACHALPRADESH,SHIMLA.

Cr.MP(M)No.968of2019

.
Decidedon:12.6.2019

SimpleKumar………..Petitioner
Versus

StateofHimachalPradesh……….Respondent

Coram:
Hon’bleMr.JusticeSandeepSharma,Judge.

Whetherapprovedforreporting?1
ForthePetitioner:Mr.VishwaBhushan,Advocate.
FortheRespondent:Mr.AshwaniSharmaandMr.Sanjeev
Sood,AdditionalAdvocateGenerals
withMr.SunnyDhatwalia,Assistant
rAdvocateGeneral.

SandeepSharma,Judge(oral):

BailpetitionernamelySimpleKumar,hasapproachedthis

CourtintheinstantproceedingsfiledunderSection439ofCr.PC,praying

thereinforgrantofregularbailinconnectionwithFIRNo.30/18dated

9.5.2018,underSection376ofIPCSection4ofPOCSOAct,registered,

atSadarWomenPoliceStationatBhiuli,DistrictMandi,H.P.

2.Sequeltoorderdated27.5.2019,passedbythisCourt,Sub

InspectorPawanKumar,WomenPoliceStation,Mandi,H.P.,hascome

presentinCourtalongwithrecordofthecase.Mr.SanjeevSood,learned

AdditionalAdvocateGeneral,hasalsoplacedonrecordstatusreport

1
Whetherthereportersofthelocalpapersmaybeallowedtoseethejudgment?

13/06/201922:00:54:::HCHP
2

preparedonthebasisoftheinvestigationcarriedoutbytheinvestigating

agency.Recordperusedandreturned.

.

3.Closescrutinyoftherecord/statusreportrevealsthaton

9.5.2018,complainant-prosecutrix(hereinafterreferredtoas”the

prosecutrix”)gotherstatementrecordedunderSection154Cr.PC

allegingthereinthatsheisstudyingin8thClassatGovernmentMiddle

SchoolChhimbaBalahandinthemonthofJanuary,2018,(datenot

known),whileshewasgoingtoherhomeafterschool,bailpetitioner

forciblytookhertowardsthebushesandsexuallyassaultedheragainst

herwishes.Asperprosecutrix,sheaftertwodaysoftheallegedincident

informedherstepmotherwithregardtotheallegedincident,butshedid

nottakeanyaction.On7.5.2018,whenshewastakentohospitalbyhis

grandfatheronaccountofstomachache,ittranspiredthatsheis

pregnant.Afterhavingdiscoveredaforesaidfactumofpregnancy,

complainantgottheaforesaidstatementrecorded,onthebasisofwhich,

formalFIRNo.13/18dated9.5.2018,underSection376IPCandSectionof

thePOCSOAct,cametobelodgedatWomenPoliceStation,Mandi,

H.P.,againsttheaccusedandsincethen,bailpetitionerisbehindbars.

4.Recordrevealsthatinvestigationinthecaseiscomplete

andchallanstandsfiledinthecompetentcourtoflawandnothingis

requiredtoberecoveredfromthebailpetitioner.

13/06/201922:00:54:::HCHP
3

5.Mr.VishwaBhushan,learnedcounselforthebailpetitioner

strenuouslyarguedthatnocasemuchlessunderSection376ofIPCis

.

madeoutagainstthebailpetitioner,whohasbeenfalselyimplicatedin

thecaseandassuch,deservestobeenlargedonbail.Whilereferringto

themedicalevidenceadducedonrecord,learnedcounselmadeserious

attempttopersuadethisCourttoagreewithhiscontentionthatatno

pointoftime,rape,ifany,wasevercommittedbythebailpetitioner,

rather,childinthewombofprosecutrixisnotofthepetitionerashasbeen

concludedintheDNAreport.Lastly,Mr.Bhushan,contendedthatsince

thebailpetitionerhassufferedformorethanoneyearwithouttherebeing

anyfaultofhim,instantapplicationdeservestobeallowed.

6.Mr.SanjeevSood,learnedAdditionalAdvocateGeneral,

whilefairlyadmittingthefactumwithregardtothereportofDNA,wherein

thebailpetitionerhasnotbeenshowntobethebiologicalfatherofthe

childinthewomboftheprosecutrix,contendedthatallegationofrape

leveledbytheprosecutrixisstillthereandassuch,DNAreportcannotbe

asolegroundtoarriveataconclusionthatatthetimeofalleged

incident,prosecutrixwasnotsubjectedtoforcibleintercoursebythebail

petitioner.Mr.Soodfurthercontendedthatkeepinginviewtheageof

theprosecutrix,whoatthetimeoftheallegedincidentwaslessthan12

yearsofage,bailpetitionerdoesnotdeserveanyleniency.

13/06/201922:00:54:::HCHP
4

7.Havingheardlearnedcounselforthepartiesandperused

materialavailableonrecord,thoughthisCourtfindsthatatthetimeof

.

theallegedincident,prosecutrixwasoflessthan12yearsofage,but

havingtakennoteofthereportofDNAplacedonrecord,thisCourtfinds

thatchildinthewombofprosecutrixisnotofthebailpetitioner.Asper

ownstatementoftheprosecutrix,shebecamepregnantafterhaving

beenrapedbythebailpetitioner,whichstatementofherisnot

corroboratedbythemedicalevidenceadducedonrecordbythe

InvestigatingAgency.

8.Thoughaforesaidaspectsofthematteraretobe

consideredanddecidedbythecourtbelowonthebasisoftotalityof

evidencecollectedonrecordbytheprosecution,butthisCourthaving

perusedmaterialavailableonrecordatthisstage,seesnoreasontolet

thebailpetitionerincarcerateinjailforanindefiniteperiod.Repeatedly,

ithasbeenheldbytheHon’bleApexCourtaswellasthisCourtthattill

thetime,guiltofindividualisnotprovedinaccordancewithlaw,he/sheis

deemedtobeinnocentandinthecaseathandalso,guilt,ifany,ofthe

bailpetitionerisyettobeprovedinaccordancewithlawbythe

prosecutionbyleadingcogentandconvincingevidence.Itiswellsettled

thattillthetimeapersonisnotfoundguilty,he/sheisdeemedtobe

innocent.

13/06/201922:00:54:::HCHP
5

9.Recently,theHon’bleApexCourtinCriminalAppealNo.

227/Section2018,DataramSinghvs.StateofUttarPradeshAnr.,decidedon

.

6.2.2018,hascategoricallyheldthatafundamentalpostulateofcriminal

jurisprudenceisthepresumptionofinnocence,meaningtherebythata

personisbelievedtobeinnocentuntilfoundguilty.Hon’bleApexCourt

furtherheldthatwhileconsideringprayerforgrantofbail,itisimportantto

ascertainwhethertheaccusedwasparticipatingintheinvestigationsto

thesatisfactionoftheinvestigatingofficerandwasnotabscondingornot

appearingwhenrequiredbytheinvestigatingofficer.

rHon’bleApex

Courthasfurtherheldthatifanaccusedisnothidingfromthe

investigatingofficerorishidingduetosomegenuineandexpressedfear

ofbeingvictimized,itwouldbeafactorthatajudgewouldneedto

considerinanappropriatecase.Therelevantparasoftheaforesaid

judgmentarereproducedasunder:

“2.Afundamentalpostulateofcriminaljurisprudenceisthe

presumptionofinnocence,meaningtherebythatapersonis
believedtobeinnocentuntilfoundguilty.However,thereare

instancesinourcriminallawwhereareverseonushasbeen
placedonanaccusedwithregardtosomespecificoffences
butthatisanothermatteranddoesnotdetractfromthe
fundamentalpostulateinrespectofotheroffences.Yet

anotherimportantfacetofourcriminaljurisprudenceisthat
thegrantofbailisthegeneralruleandputtingapersoninjail
orinaprisonorinacorrectionhome(whicheverexpression
onemaywishtouse)isanexception.Unfortunately,someof
thesebasicprinciplesappeartohavebeenlostsightofwith
theresultthatmoreandmorepersonsarebeingincarcerated
andforlongerperiods.Thisdoesnotdoanygoodtoour
criminaljurisprudenceortooursociety.

3.Thereisnodoubtthatthegrantordenialofbailisentirely
thediscretionofthejudgeconsideringacasebutevenso,the

13/06/201922:00:54:::HCHP
6

exerciseofjudicialdiscretionhasbeencircumscribedbya
largenumberofdecisionsrenderedbythisCourtandby
everyHighCourtinthecountry.Yet,occasionallythereisa
necessitytointrospectwhetherdenyingbailtoanaccused

.

personistherightthingtodoonthefactsandinthe

circumstancesofacase.

4.Whilesointrospecting,amongthefactorsthatneedtobe
considerediswhethertheaccusedwasarrestedduring
investigationswhenthatpersonperhapshasthebest
opportunitytotamperwiththeevidenceorinfluence

witnesses.Iftheinvestigatingofficerdoesnotfinditnecessary
toarrestanaccusedpersonduringinvestigations,astrong
caseshouldbemadeoutforplacingthatpersoninjudicial
custodyafterachargesheetisfiled.Similarly,itisimportantto
ascertainwhethertheaccusedwasparticipatinginthe
investigationstothesatisfactionoftheinvestigatingofficerand

wasnotabscondingornotappearingwhenrequiredbythe
investigatingofficer.Surely,ifanaccusedisnothidingfrom
theinvestigatingofficerorishidingduetosomegenuineand
expressedfearofbeingvictimised,itwouldbeafactorthata
judgewouldneedtoconsiderinanappropriatecase.Itisalso

necessaryforthejudgetoconsiderwhethertheaccusedisa
first-timeoffenderorhasbeenaccusedofotheroffencesand

ifso,thenatureofsuchoffencesandhisorhergeneral
conduct.Thepovertyorthedeemedindigentstatusofan
accusedisalsoanextremelyimportantfactorandeven
Parliamenthastakennoticeofitbyincorporatingan
ExplanationtoSection436oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,
1973.Anequallysoftapproachtoincarcerationhasbeen

takenbyParliamentbyinsertingSection436AinSectiontheCodeof
CriminalProcedure,1973.

5.Toputitshortly,ahumaneattitudeisrequiredtobe
adoptedbyajudge,whiledealingwithanapplicationfor

remandingasuspectoranaccusedpersontopolicecustody
orjudicialcustody.Thereareseveralreasonsforthisincluding
maintainingthedignityofanaccusedperson,howsoever

poorthatpersonmightbe,therequirementsofSectionArticle21of
theConstitutionandthefactthatthereisenormous
overcrowdinginprisons,leadingtosocialandotherproblems
asnoticedbythisCourtinInRe-InhumanConditionsin1382

Prisons.

10.Needlesstosayobjectofthebailistosecurethe

attendanceoftheaccusedinthetrialandthepropertesttobeapplied

inthesolutionofthequestionwhetherbailshouldbegrantedorrefusedis

13/06/201922:00:54:::HCHP
7

whetheritisprobablethatthepartywillappeartotakehistrial.

Otherwise,bailisnottobewithheldasapunishment.Otherwisealso,

.

normalruleisofbailandnotjail.Courthastokeepinmindnatureof

accusations,natureofevidenceinsupportthereof,severityofthe

punishmentwhichconvictionwillentail,characteroftheaccused,

circumstanceswhicharepeculiartotheaccusedinvolvedinthatcrime.

11.TheHon’bleApexCourtinSanjayChandraversusCentral

BureauofInvestigation(2012)1SupremeCourtCases49;heldasunder:-

“Theobjectofbailistosecuretheappearanceoftheaccused
personathistrialbyreasonableamountofbail.Theobjectofbail
isneitherpunitivenorpreventative.Deprivationoflibertymustbe

consideredapunishment,unlessitcanberequiredtoensurethat
anaccusedpersonwillstandhistrialwhencalledupon.The

Courtsowemorethanverbalrespecttotheprinciplethat
punishmentbeginsafterconviction,andthateverymanis
deemedtobeinnocentuntildulytriedanddulyfoundguilty.
Detentionincustodypendingcompletionoftrialcouldbea
causeofgreathardship.Fromtimetotime,necessitydemands
thatsomeunconvictedpersonsshouldbeheldincustody

pendingtrialtosecuretheirattendanceatthetrialbutinsuch
cases,”necessity”istheoperativetest.InIndia,itwouldbequite
contrarytotheconceptofpersonallibertyenshrinedinthe
Constitutionthatanypersonshouldbepunishedinrespectofany

matter,uponwhich,hehasnotbeenconvictedorthatinany
circumstances,heshouldbedeprivedofhislibertyupononlythe
beliefthathewilltamperwiththewitnessesifleftatliberty,save

inthemostextraordinarycircumstances.Apartfromthequestion
ofpreventionbeingtheobjectofrefusalofbail,onemustnotlose
sightofthefactthatanyimprisonmentbeforeconvictionhasa
substantialpunitivecontentanditwouldbeimproperforany
courttorefusebailasamarkofdisapprovalofformerconduct

whethertheaccusedhasbeenconvictedforitornotortorefuse
bailtoanunconvictedpersonfortheproposeofgivinghima
tasteofimprisonmentasalesson.”

12.InManoranjanaSinhAliasGuptaversusCBI2017(5)SCC

218,TheHon’bleApexCourthasheldasunder:-

13/06/201922:00:54:::HCHP
8

“ThisCourtinSectionSanjayChandrav.CBI,alsoinvolvinganeconomic
offenceofformidablemagnitude,whiledealingwiththeissueof
grantofbail,hadobservedthatdeprivationoflibertymustbe
consideredapunishmentunlessitisrequiredtoensurethatan

.

accusedpersonwouldstandhistrialwhencalleduponandthat
thecourtsowemorethanverbalrespecttotheprinciplethat

punishmentbeginsafterconvictionandthateverymanis
deemedtobeinnocentuntildulytriedandfoundguilty.Itwas
underlinedthattheobjectofbailisneitherpunitiveorpreventive.
ThisCourtsoundedacaveatthatanyimprisonmentbefore

convictionhasasubstantialpunitivecontentanditwouldbe
improperforanycourttorefusebailasamarkofdisapprovalofa
conductwhetheranaccusedhasbeenconvictedforitornotor
torefusebailtoanunconvictedpersonforthepurposeofgiving
himtotasteofimprisonmentasalesson.Itwasenunciatedthat
sincethejurisdictiontograntbailtoanaccusedpendingtrialor

inappealagainstconvictionisdiscretionaryinnature,ithastobe
exercisedwithcareadcautionbybalancingthevaluablerightof
libertyofanindividualandtheinterestofthesocietyingeneral.It
waselucidatedthattheseriousnessofthecharge,isnodoubt
oneoftherelevantconsiderationswhileexaminingthe
applicationofbailbutitwasnotonlythetestorthefactorandthe

grantordenialofsuchprivilege,isregulatedtoalargeextentby
thefactsandcircumstancesofeachparticularcase.That

detentionincustodyofundertrialprisonersforanindefinite
periodwouldamounttoviolationofSectionArticle21oftheConstitution
washighlighted.”

13.TheHon’bleApexCourtinSectionPrasantaKumarSarkarv.Ashis

ChatterjeeandAnother(2010)14SCC496,haslaiddownthefollowing

principlestobekeptinmind,whiledecidingpetitionforbail:

(i)whetherthereisanyprimafacieorreasonablegroundto
believethattheaccusedhadcommittedtheoffence;

(ii)natureandgravityoftheaccusation;
(iii)severityofthepunishmentintheeventofconviction;
(iv)dangeroftheaccusedabscondingorfleeing,ifreleasedon
bail;

(v)character,behaviour,means,positionandstandingofthe
accused;
(vi)likelihoodoftheoffencebeingrepeated;
(vii)reasonableapprehensionofthewitnessesbeinginfluenced;
and

(viii)danger,ofcourse,ofjusticebeingthwartedbygrantofbail.

13/06/201922:00:54:::HCHP
9

14.Inviewoftheaforesaiddiscussionaswellaslawlaiddown

bytheHon’bleApexCourt,petitionerhascarvedoutacaseforgrantof

.

bail,accordingly,thepetitionisallowedandthepetitionerisorderedto

beenlargedonbailinaforesaidFIR,subjecttohisfurnishingpersonal

bondinthesumofRs.1,00,000/-withonelocalsuretyinthelikeamountto

thesatisfactionofconcernedChiefJudicialMagistrate/trialCourt,with

followingconditions:

(a)Heshallmakehimselfavailableforthepurposeofinterrogation,ifso
requiredandregularlyattendthetrialCourtoneachandeverydate
ofhearingandifpreventedbyanyreasontodoso,seekexemption
fromappearancebyfilingappropriateapplication;

(b)Heshallnottamperwiththeprosecutionevidencenorhamperthe

(c)

investigationofthecaseinanymannerwhatsoever;
Heshallnotmakeanyinducement,threatorpromisestoanyperson

acquaintedwiththefactsofthecasesoastodissuadehim/herfrom
disclosingsuchfactstotheCourtorthePoliceOfficer;and

(d)HeshallnotleavetheterritoryofIndiawithoutthepriorpermissionof
theCourt.

15.Itisclarifiedthatifthepetitionermisusesthelibertyorviolate

anyoftheconditionsimposeduponhim,theinvestigatingagencyshall

befreetomovethisCourtforcancellationofthebail.

16.Anyobservationsmadehereinaboveshallnotbeconstrued

tobeareflectiononthemeritsofthecaseandshallremainconfinedto

thedisposalofthisapplicationalone.Thepetitionstandsaccordingly

disposedof.

Copydasti.

12thJune,2019(SandeepSharma),
manjitJudge

13/06/201922:00:54:::HCHP