Allowed

Kamal Kumar Singh v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Sept 2017CRMPM/1161/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted bail to the petitioner accused under Section 439 CrPC in a case involving alleged molestation of a minor student under Section 354A IPC and Section 10 POCSO. The court imposed a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner-accused released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the like amount. Bail granted subject to conditions to join investigation and not leave India.

Kamal Kumar Singh Vs State of Hp — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. M.P. (M) No. 1161 of 2017

¶3

Date of Decision: September 13, 2017

¶4

Kamal Kumar Singh ..… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. ….. Respondent

¶7

Coram

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge

¶9

Whether approved for reporting? No.

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Virender K. Verma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for the respondent-State

¶11

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge (oral) :

¶12

The present petition has been moved by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail in case FIR No. 222 of 2017 dated 26.08.2017, for the offences, punishable under Sections 354A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P.

¶13

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

¶15

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, the complainant-Durgesh Kumar, father of the girl, lodged a complaint in Police Station Sadar, Chamba that the petitioner-accused has outraged the modesty of his daughter, studying in 9^th Class, in Government Senior Secondary School, Randoh. It was alleged in the complaint that, on 26.08.2017, the petitioner-accused, who is a PTI in the aforesaid school, asked the boys and girls to come out of the class rooms to either play out side the room or in the play ground. It was alleged that the petitioner-accused was standing near the door in verandah, out side the class room and was waiting for other girls and the petitioner-accused touched the waist of the prosecutrix and smiled. Thereafter, he had gone to another side and again came towards the prosecutrix and again touched her waist. As per prosecution, the prosecutrix has disclosed this fact to her classmates, who alongwith prosecutrix disclosed this incident to Madam Poonam and thereafter reported the matter to the Principal. Petitioner felt sorry from the prosecutrix. However, thereafter petitioner-accused asked the prosecutrix to tell the staff that she by mistake reported the matter.

¶16

On these allegations, FIR was registered under Sections 354-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the

¶17

¶18

Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, at Police Station, Sadar, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P.

¶19

As per the petitioner, he is innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.

¶20

Heard. After going through the police report and after hearing learned counsel to the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General, this Court is of the view that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bar for unlimited period. The interest of justice will be met, in case, judicial direction to admit the petitioner on bail is exercised in favour of the petitioner. So, it is ordered that petitioner-accused be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond to the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) That the petitioner will join investigation of case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.

¶22

(ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

¶23

¶24

(iii) That the petitioner will 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 the Investigating Officer or Court.

¶25

Copy ‘Dasti’.

¶26

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge

¶27

September 13, 2017

¶28

brb

Kamal Kumar Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kumar Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Vardhman Industries Vs Vivek Saini

Moti Singh Vs State of Hp

Shyam Singh Vs State of Hp

Shobha Ram Vs Bhavan Kumar

Yog Raj Vs State of Hp

Hrtc Vs Kumari Devi