SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner namely Sunil Kumar, who is behind the bars since 8/11/2021, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Sec. 439 Cr.PC, for grant of regular bail, in case FIR No. 354/21dated 7/11/2021, registered at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, under Ss. 363, 366, 504, 506 and 376 of the IPC and Ss. 04 and 16 of the POCSO Act.

(2.) Pursuant to order dtd. 27/12/2021, respondent-state has filed the status report. SI Rajat Rana, PS Balh, is also present with the records. Records perused and returned. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 7/11/2021, complainant Prakash Chand, lodged a complaint at PS Balh, alleging therein that his daughter i.e. victim-prosecutrix (name withheld), who is 17 years old and student of BA, 1st year, at 9:00 am, had gone to college at Mandi, but when she did not return to home till 5:00pm, he contacted her friend Ms. Neha. Complainant alleged that he has come to know that the bail petitioner Sunil Kumar has made his daughter to elope with him. When he tried to contact the bail petitioner on his phone number, bail petitioner informed that he has solemnized marriage with her. Complainant alleged that since bail petitioner has made the victim- prosecutrix, who is minor, to elope with him, appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against him. Before action, if any, on the aforesaid complaint could be taken by the police, complainant on 8/11/2021 telephonically informed the Police Station Balh that victim- prosecutrix has come back and he shall bring her before police on the next day. On 9/11/2021, victim-prosecutrix joined the investigation, but refused to undergo medical examination. She categorically stated to the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Rati, that she does not want to undergo medical test and she of her own volition had gone with the present bail petitioner to Manali. However subsequently, victim-prosecutrix again presented herself before Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Rati for medical examination and claimed that she had gone with the present bail petitioner to Manali and there, she was forcibly sexually assaulted by the bail petitioner. Police also got statement of victim-prosecutrix recorded under Sec. 161 CrPC, wherein she stated that she of her own volition had gone to Manali with the bail petitioner and there she was compelled to solemnize marriage by the bail petitioner. In the aforesaid background, FIR as detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the present bail petitioner and since then, he is behind the bars. Since investigation is complete and challan is likely to be filed, prayer has been made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail.

(3.) Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to completion of investigation submits 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 deserve any leniency and as such, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail deserves to be rejected. Mr. Sharma, states that though there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record by the investigating agency suggestive of the fact that the bail petitioner taking undue advantage of innocence of minority of the victim-prosecutrix not only sexually assaulted her against her wishes, but also extended threats to her, but even otherwise consent, if any, of victim-prosecutrix being minor is immaterial and as such, prayer made in the instant petition for grant of bail deserves to be rejected outrightly.