Allowed

Amit Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Jul 2017CRMPM/865/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under IPC and POCSO, the Court held that despite serious allegations, the nearly one-year custody and lack of evidence tampering risk justified granting bail conditioned on a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail forthforth via personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety and compliance with standard bail conditions.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MP(M) No. 865 of 2017 Decided on: 18^th July, 2017

¶4

__________________________________________________________________ Amit Kumar ....Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …Respondent.

¶5

Coram

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶7

For the petitioner:	Mr. Arun Sehgal, Advocate.
For the respondent:	Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. AG, with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.
	HC Ravinder Chaudhary No. 101, Police Station Panchrukhi, District Kangra, H.P.
________________________ Chander Bhusan Baro	_________________________________________ walia, Judge (oral).

¶8

The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 155 of 2016, dated 16.08.2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( for short “IPC”) and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Palampur, H.P.

¶9

As per the petitioner, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place

¶10

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

¶12

and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, on 16.08.2016, Smt. Sushma Sharma (complainant), by way of filing a complaint, reported to the police that her daughter (prosecutrix) studies in 10+1 in Crescent School Banuri and the petitioner was her classmate. On 22.02.2016 the petitioner told the prosecutrix that today is his birthday and they will celebrate it at Jogindernagar alongwith other friends. The petitioner forcibly took the prosecutrix through a bus to Jogindernagar and thereafter he took her to a room, where he gave her some white juice. When the prosecutrix asked about the other friends, then the petitioner did not allow her to make calls. Thereafter, the petitioner started doing vulgar acts with her and he left her at Banuri and also threatened her. The petitioner, through telephonic calls, also threatened to defame the prosecutrix. The petitioner also black mailed the prosecutrix that he will upload her recording on social site. The police, acting upon the complaint of the complainant, registered an FIR under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act. The police got conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix. The statements of the witnesses were also recorded. The accused was arrested on 16.08.2016 and his medical examination was also conducted. The statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The

¶13

¶14

chemical analysis report revealed that sexual assault on the prosecutrix. The investigation further unearthed that the petitioner sexually assaulted the prosecutrix on 22.02.2016 and 03.06.2016 at different places. The police visited the spots of occurrence and got the same photographed. The proceedings were videographed and date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix was also obtained, as per which she was born on 01.01.1999. Call details were obtained, which revealed that the petitioner used to call the prosecutrix from his mobile No. 82639-32995. Mobile, SIM card and memory card of the petitioner were also taken into possession and were sent for print outs to RFSL, Dharamshala, and after obtaining the same, supplementary challan was presented in the Court. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

¶15

Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he is resident of the place. He has further argued that he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than a year and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the petitioner may be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious offence and in case he is enlarged on bail there are chances that they may tamper

¶16

¶17

with the prosecution evidence and flee from justice, so the present is a fit case where the bail is required to be dismissed.

¶18

I have gone through the rival contentions of the parties and the police record in detail.

¶19

At this stage, taking into consideration the allegations leveled against the petitioner, which have come on record, the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than a year, the age of the prosecutrix as well as the age of the accused, also the fact that both, petitioner and the prosecutrix, were studying together in the school at the time of the alleged incidence, the delay in lodging the FIR and other material, which has come on record, and also the fact that the investigation in the present matter is complete and challan stands filed in the Court, this Court finds that the petitioner is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence or flee from justice. At the same point of time, the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, as he is behind the bars for approximately more than a year, so the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police of Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, in connection with case FIR No. 155 of 2016, dated 16.08.2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, he shall be

¶20

¶21

released on bail forthwith, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The bail

¶22

is granted subject to the following conditions:

¶23

(i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required.

¶24

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

¶25

(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/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court.

¶26

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

¶27

Copy dasti.

¶28

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) 18^th July, 2017 Judge

¶29

(virender)

Amit Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar 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

State Vs Balwinder Singh

Shashi Kumar Vs Sunka Ram

State Vs Sunil Dutt

Nirmala Devi Vs State of Hp

Rakesh Kumar Vs Mani Devi

State Vs Yash Pal