RAJEEV BRAGTA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner namely, Rajeev Bragta, who is behind the bars for the last 10 months, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying therein for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.95 of 2019, dated 19.8.2019, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, registered at police Station, Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Besides filing status report, learned Additional Advocate General has also made available record pertaining to the case, perusal whereof reveals that on 19.8.2019, complainant Rakesh Chauhan, who happened to be father of the victim/ prosecutrix, lodged a complaint that on 17.8.2019 her daughter has gone missing. He further disclosed to the police that on 18.8.2019 at 10:00 PM, his wife received telephonic call from his minor daughter that she is in Solan and they should not make any effort to search her. Complainant alleged that he has suspicion that some unknown boy had made her to elope with him and as such, appropriate action be taken against the culprit. Initially, on the basis of aforesaid complaint lodged by the complainant, named hereinabove, police lodged FIR, as detailed hereinabove, against the unknown person, but subsequently police after having received call details report of the phone allegedly used by the victim/prosecutrix, recovered her from village Minee, Tehsil Jubal, District Shimla, H.P., and registered the case against the bail petitioner. Police after having recorded the statement of the victim/ prosecutrix under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., also got her medically examined at CHC, Rohru. As per status report challan stands filed in the competent court of law, but till date charge has not been framed and as such, prayer has been made on behalf of the bail petitioner for grant of regular bail.

(3.) Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General while fairly admitting the factum with regard to filing of the 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 offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserves any leniency and as such, prayer for grant of bail may be rejected. Learned Additional Advocate General further contends that through there is ample evidence adduced on record by the Investigating Agency suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner taking undue advantage of innocence and minority of the victim/prosecutrix, not only made her to elope with him, rather sexually assaulted her against her wishes, but even otherwise consent, if any, of the victim/prosecutrix is immaterial on account of her being minor and as such, present application may be dismissed.