Jad Ram Vs State of H.P.

¶1

( 2025:HHC:9054 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶3

Cr.MP (M) No. 632 of 2025 Reserved on : 01.04.2025 Decided on : 04.04.2025

¶4

Jad Ram …Applicant

¶5

Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent

¶6

Coram

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the applicant : Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma & Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

¶9

Virender Singh, Judge

¶10

Applicant–Jad Ram, has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), with a prayer to release him on bail, during the pendency of trial, in case FIR No.1 of 2025, dated 02.01.2025, registered, under Sections 65(1), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from

¶11

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶12

2

¶13

(2025:HHC:9054)

¶14

Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’), with Police Station Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P.

¶15

According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated and arrested, in the present case.

¶16

As per the applicant, he is 85 years of age and is suffering from age related problems. Complainant is stated to be son of the applicant from his second wife and he is pressurizing the applicant to transfer his entire land

¶17

holding, in his favour, to the exclusion of his five daughters, whereas, the applicant has already given separate parcel of the land to the complainant.

¶18

Apart from this, the delay of 17 days in lodging the FIR has also been highlighted by the applicant, as a fact to demonstrate that he has falsely been implicated, in this case.

¶19

According to the applicant, investigation in this

¶20

case is complete. Even, in the investigation, no incriminating evidence has been found against him.

¶21

The applicant has also tried his luck, by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Additional

¶22

3 (2025:HHC:9054)

¶23

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Shimla, however, the said application was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.01.2025. Thereafter, he has again filed application, which was dismissed on 11.03.2025.

¶24

On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, has given certain undertakings on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case ordered to be released on bail.

¶25

On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.

¶26

When put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, on 02.01.2025, the complainant has made a statement, under Section 173 of BNSS, mentioning therein that he was married about 19 years ago. He has been blessed with two daughters and one son. The child victim is his elder daughter, aged about 15 years 11 months. His father Jad Ram (applicant), is residing in a separate accommodation, which is above the house of the complainant.

¶27

9.1. On 15.12.2024, as per the version of the complainant, his father Jad Ram (applicant), disclosed to

¶28

4

¶29

(2025:HHC:9054)

¶30

him that he was not feeling well, as such, he had asked the complainant to send the child victim to his house to prepare meal for him. Consequently, the child victim was sent to the house of the applicant.

¶31

9.2. According to the complainant, when, she returned back after preparing meal, the child victim was found to be frightened and she went to sleep. Thereafter, she started remaining silent. On 2.1.2025, the child victim disclosed to the complainant that on 15.12.2024, when she had gone to the house of applicant for preparing meal for him, then at about 8.15 p.m., after preparing meal, Jad Ram (applicant) took her to room, where, she had been raped by the accused and also threatened her to kill, in case, she will disclose this fact to anyone. Due to his fear, the child victim has not disclosed this fact to anyone.

¶32

9.2. As such, the complainant has prayed to take action against the applicant.

¶33

9.3. Upon this, the police registered the case and child victim was medico legally examined at CHC Sandasu.

¶34

9.4. The physical evidence, so collected, was taken into possession. The child victim was produced before the

¶35

5

¶36

(2025:HHC:9054)

¶37

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Theog, where her statement under Section 183 BNSS, was recorded.

¶38

9.5. Thereafter, the police had searched for the accused (applicant), but, he could not be found. On 4.1.2025, a secret information was received regarding the presence of the accused at Bus Stand Badiara. He was brought to Police Post Jangla.

¶39

9.6. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested and he was medico-legally examined at CHC Sandasu. The physical evidence so collected was sent for SFSL Junga. After receipt of report from SFSL Junga, charge sheet has been filed in the competent Court of law.

¶40

On the basis of the above facts, it has been apprehended that the child victim is a student of +1 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, the child victim may take extreme step and there is also danger to the life of the applicant.

¶41

It has also been apprehended that he may coerce the witnesses, as such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application.

¶42

6 (2025:HHC:9054)

¶43

In this case, admittedly, the incident had allegedly been taken place on 15.12.2024 and the FIR, in question, was lodged on 02.01.2025. Although, it is for the prosecution to explain the delay, during the trial, but, for the purpose of deciding the bail, this fact cannot be ignored.

¶44

The investigation, in the present case, is complete, as, in the status report, it has been mentioned that the charge sheet has been filed, in the Court, on 01.03.2025.

¶45

Except the present case, no other case is stated to have been registered against the applicant, as such, the presumption of innocence is still available to the applicant. 15. The bail application cannot be rejected, as a matter of punishment, as, pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law and punishment can only be imposed, after the full fledged trial, by competent Court of law.

¶46

The role allegedly played by the applicant, in the commission of the alleged offences, for which, he has been named, as accused, will be proved during the trial.

¶47

7

¶48

(2025:HHC:9054)

¶49

However, considering the fact that the applicant is a senior citizen, aged about 85 years, he is able to make out a case for releasing him on bail.

¶50

So far as the apprehensions, which have been expressed, by the Police, in the status report, are concerned, reasonable conditions can be imposed, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail.

¶51

Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.1 of 2025, dated 02.01.2025, registered, under Sections 65(1) and 351(3) of the BNS, and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, with Police Station Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

¶52

This order of release, however, shall be subject to the following conditions :-

¶53

“a) Applicant shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

¶54

8

¶55

(2025:HHC:9054)

¶56

b) Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

¶57

c) Applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

¶58

d) Applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.”

¶59

Any of the observations made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case as these observations are confined only to the disposal of the present bail application.

¶60

It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found to be violated by the bail applicant/petitioner.

¶61

The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent Jail, District Jail, Kaithu, District Shimla through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software.

¶62

In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail,

¶63

9 (2025:HHC:9054)

¶64

the Superintendent Jail, District Jail, Kaithu, District Shimla, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Shimla. The Superintendent Jail, District Jail, Kaithu, District Shimla, is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court.

¶65

( Virender Singh ) Judge

¶66

April 04, 2025 (ps)

¶67

Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.04.04 14:24:39 IST

Jad Ram v. State of H.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jad Ram v. State of H.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subash Vs Naval Kishore

Akhil Rana Vs State of Hp

Bhagwat Prasad Vs Deepak Kumar

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Hp

Jagmohan Jinta Vs Manju Jinta

Munish Kumar Vs State of Hp