SURENDER Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner Surender, who is behind the bars since 5.2.2021, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under S.439 CrPC, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 5, dated 25.1.2021 under Ss. 363, 366A, 120B, 376, 506 IPC and S.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station, Pachhad, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Status report filed by the State in terms of order dated 31.3.2021, prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the investigating agency, reveals that on 25.1.2021, complainant, who happened to be the mother of the victimprosecutrix (name withheld), lodged a complaint at Police Station Pachhad, District Sirmaur, alleging therein that her minor daughter, aged 15 years, has gone missing and she has apprehension that the person namely Amit, has made her daughter elope with him on the pretext of marriage, as such, appropriate action, in accordance with law, may be taken against the above named person. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, police registered case under Ss. 363, 366A IPC and on the basis of Call Detail Record, apprehended a person namely Golu alias Govind from Riwari, Haryana. Above named Golu alias Govind disclosed to the police that the person namely Amit had come to him alongwith the victimprosecutrix. Allegedly, the above named Golu also apprised the complainant with regard to the factum of solemnization of marriage inter se Amit and the victim-prosecutrix. Police, after having found involvement of Golu alias Govind, registered a case against him under Ss.120B and 506 IPC. On the basis of information shared by above named Golu alias Govind, Police found that the person namely Nitish, brother of Amit had called Golu to Delhi, from where, they sent Amit and victimprosecutrix to Bihar. The precise allegation against the present bail petitioner is that he accompanied the main accused Amit and victim-prosecutrix in a car, while they were going from Nahan to Jhajhar, Haryana, whereafter, accused Golu alias Govind took the victim-prosecutrix to Delhi and thereafter sent her alongwith the main accused Amit to Bihar. In the aforesaid background, bail petitioner also came to be named in the FIR and since 5.2.2021, he is behind the bars.

(3.) Since Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing is to be recovered from the bail petitioner, as such, he has approached this Court in the changed circumstances. Record reveals that prior to filing of the petition at hand, bail petitioner had filed a petition before learned Special Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan but his prayer was rejected vide order dated 18.3.2021. Perusal of order dated 18.3.2021 reveals that the factum with regard to bail petitioner being a resident of Haryana, weighed heavily with the learned Court below for rejection of bail, because, learned Court below has specifically observed in its order dated 18.3.2021 that in the event of bail petitioner being enlarged on bail he may not only abscond during trial but may also hamper the investigation.