Allowed

Jagdev Singh v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC26 Nov 2019CRMPM/1742/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh entertained the petitioner's bail application under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving POCSO and IPC offences. Considering his local residence, truthful disclosure, and cooperation with police, the Court allowed anticipatory bail subject to a surety bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety in the same amount.

Jagdev Singh Vs State of Hp — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Himachal Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

	Cr.MP(M) No. 1742 of 2019 Decided on: 26^thNovember, 2019
Jagdev Singh State of Himachal Pradesh	….Petitioner Versus …Respondent
Coram *The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ch* *Whether approved for repo*	*ander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.* *rting?¹Yes.*
For the petitioner:	Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate.
For the respondent/State:	Mr. Raju Ram Rahi and Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Deputy Advocates General.
	ASI Harish Chander, Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P.
____________________________ Chander Bhusan Barowal	__________________________________________ ia, Judge. (oral).

¶3

The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 142 of 2019, dated 09.09.2019, under Sections 354, 354A, 506 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P.

¶4

As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by sending him behind the bars, so he be released on bail.

¶5

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

¶6

¶7

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 09.09.2019 written complaint of the prosecutrix (name withheld) was forwarded to the police by Superintendent Grade-II, B.E.E.O., Jawali. The complaint was qua sexual harassment by the petitioner, who is teacher in Primary School Badhel, with the prosecutrix in the school. On 07.09.2019 the Sexual Harassment Committee constituted by the school management to probe into the allegations of the prosecutrix found the petitioner guilty, so the matter was sent to police. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioner used to tease the prosecutrix, who is student of 5^th standard in the said school. The petitioner time and again repeated his acts with the prosecutrix, so the prosecutrix divulged it to her parents. The parents of the prosecutrix made a written complaint to the school and the allegations made therein were found to be true. The school management sent the matter to police for apt action under the law. The police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Police prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The record qua the date of birth of the prosecutrix was obtained. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Police took into possession the mobile phone of the petitioner. During the course of investigation, it was unearthed that on 13.08.2019, at about 11:00 a.m., when the prosecutrix went to the petitioner for getting her notebook checked, the petitioner indecently touched her. The prosecutrix divulged the incident to her mother, who due to illness could not report the matter.

¶8

¶9

On 26.08.2019, at about 11:00 a.m. the prosecutrix again went to the petitioner for getting her English homework checked. The petitioner touched her private parts and also kissed her and also told her not to divulge the incident to anyone. The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother, who telephonically disclosed these facts to Principal Smt. Anju on 30.08.2019. On 31.08.2019 a written complaint was made on behalf of the prosecutrix, so Anti Sexual Harassment Committee started inquiring the matter. The petition was found guilty by the committee, so the matter was sent to the police. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and also procured the relevant records. Mobile of the petitioner was sent to RFSL, Dharamshala, and report of the examination did not reveal any explicit chat. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner has committed a serious crime. The petitioner is hiding the truth and there is possibility that in case at this stage if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his application be dismissed.

¶10

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully.

¶11

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to

¶12

¶13

flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, as he is resident of the place and he is joining and co-operating in the investigation. He has further argued that the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, so the bail application be allowed. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed.

¶14

In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. His custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, as he is resident of the place and is joining and co-operating in the investigation, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

¶15

At this stage, considering the statements of the witnesses

¶16

and that of the prosecutrix, the age of the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner is resident of the place neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, as he

¶17

¶18

is joining and co-operating in the investigation and also considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 142 of 2019, dated 09.09.2019, under Sections 354, 354A, 506 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

Copy dasti.

¶24

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)

¶25

26^th November, 2019 Judge (virender)

Jagdev Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdev 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

Gm, Nptc Ltd. Vs Des Raj

Ajay Kanwar Vs State of Hp

Atu Bala and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Sanjay Deshta Vs State of Hp

Sunny Pal Vs State of Hp

Narinder Kuar Pall Vs State of Hp