The High Court dismissed a petition for regular bail filed by a petitioner accused under IPC sections 376 and 506 read with POCSO Act sections against a minor. The Court held that absence of injuries does not negate rape allegations and the relationship of trust warranted refusal of bail to prevent re-traumatization.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No. 2864 of 2024 Reserved on: 27.02.2024 Date of Decision: 04.03.2024
Puran Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr. Devinder K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General with LHC-Rita Devi No.17, Women Police Station, Chamba, District Chamba, HP.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge:
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) read with Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act) registered vide FIR
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
No.18 of 2022 dated 12.07.2022 at Women Police Station Chamba, H.P. The petitioner is in judicial custody. The investigation is complete and the case is pending before the learned Special Judge, Chamba. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and the matter is listed for the examination of remaining witnesses. The petitioner was falsely implicated without any material. He is ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the petition.
3
used by the petitioner for intimidating the victim. The victim was medically examined. No sign of external injury was found on the genitalia, inner thigh or anal region. The victim was born on 17.03.2007 and she was aged 15 years on the date of the incident. As per the report of the FSL, no semen was detected and no DNA profiling was conducted. 10 witnesses have been examined and the matter is listed for the examination of the remaining witnesses on 05.03.2024. The petitioner is related to the victim and has abused the trust reposed by society upon him. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
4
“ 12. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily means that such discretion would have to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for a grant of bail. However, it can be noted that;
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations;
5
(b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought to be always a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to have an order of bail.
13. We may also profitably refer to a decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 where the parameters to be taken into consideration for the grant of bail by the Courts has been explained in the following words:
“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
6
( a ) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
( b ) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
( c ) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688 ] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124 ].)”
Dharamraj 2023 SCC Online 1085, wherein it was observed:
7. A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 . In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , the relevant principles were restated thus:
‘9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
7
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.’
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
a ground to reverse the conviction of the rape. It was held in Radhu vs State 2007 (12) SCC 67 , that the absence of any injury
8
does not falsify the version of the prosecution regarding the rape. Therefore, no advantage can be derived from the absence of the injuries.
9
proceeding at the normal pace. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled to bail due to the delay in trial.
( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge
4th March, 2024 (Saurav Pathania)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the absence of physical injuries and non-detection of semen falsifies the victim's testimony in a POCSO rape case?
Whether the petitioner's relationship of trust with the minor victim warrants rejection of bail due to risk of re-traumatization?
Whether the delay in trial due to witness examination justifies the grant of regular bail?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ DepakRelied on¶22
Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059 · Who else cites this
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu YadavReferred¶29
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 · Who else cites this
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan SinghReferred¶34
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] · Who else cites this
Puran v. RambilasReferred¶34
Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. DharamrajReferred¶35
State of Haryana vs Dharamraj 2023 SCC Online 1085 · Who else cites this
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis ChatterjeeReferred¶37
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 · Who else cites this
Phool Singh v. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶50
Phool Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 (2) SCC 74 · Who else cites this
State of M.P. v. PritamRelied on¶50
State of M.P vs. Pritam AIR 2018 SC4242 · Who else cites this
Santosh v. StateRelied on¶50
Santosh Vs State, 2010 (5) SCC 445 · Who else cites this
Radhu v. StateRelied on¶51
Radhu vs State 2007 (12) SCC 67 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Puran Singh
State of Himachal Pradesh
Rakesh Kainthla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
