KISHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through Video Conferencing Bail petitioner, namely Kishan Kumar, who is behind the bars since October, 2019, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 Cr.PC, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 343/2018, dated 06.12.2018 under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376, 506 of IPC and under Section 4 of POCSO, Act registered at Police Station Poanta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Status report made available to this Court in terms of orders dated 13.10.2020 and 24.12.2020, reveals that on 6.12.2018, Sh. Sarbat Hussain, who happened to be father of victim/ prosecutrix (name withheld) lodged a complaint at Police Station Poanta Sahib, District Sirmaur that bail petitioner made her minor daughter, whose date of birth is 01.01.2002, elope with him three months back on the pretext of marriage. He also alleged that a sum of Rs. 3 lac which he had collected with great difficulty, has also been taken away by the bail petitioner. He alleged that subsequently, it came to notice of his daughter that bail petitioner is married person, but despite that he sexually assaulted her against her wishes on the pretext of marriage and as such appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against him. Complainant disclosed to the police that since bail petitioner was given beatings at his native place in the State of Bihar by his family members for bringing his minor daughter during subsistence of his early marriage, bail petitioner firstly brought her daughter to Delhi and thereafter to Dehradun. Complainant alleged that in Dehradun, bail petitioner besides sexually assaulting his daughter also made her to work on construction site. Since, wife of bail petitioner subsequently came to Dehradun, daughter of complainant called her mother and brother to Dehradun and they brought her to Poanta Sahib. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, police lodged FIR detailed hereinabove against the bail petitioner on 6.12.2018, but allegedly, bail petitioner remained absconded till 14.10.2019, when he was arrested in Bihar and since then, he is behind the bars. Challan stands filed in the competent court of law, but till date, charge has not been framed and as such, bail petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

(3.) Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General while admitting the factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of the office alleged to have been committed by him coupled with the fact that he remained absconded for almost one year, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail, deserves outright rejection. Mr. Bhatnagar, while making this Court to peruse the status report, states that though there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner taking undue advantage of minority and innocence of victim/prosecutrix not only sexually assaulted against her wishes, rather also extorted sum of Rs. 3 lac earned by the complainant with great difficulty, but even otherwise consent, if any, is immaterial on account of the age of the prosecutrix. Lastly, Mr. Bhatnagar, contends that since bail petitioner hails from State of Bihar and he remained absconded in past, there is every likelihood of his fleeing from justice in the event of his being enlarged on bail and as such, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail may be rejected.