KARAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present bail application under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been maintained by the petitioner for grant of bail in case FIR No. 95/2021, dtd. 22/10/2021, under Ss. 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Sec. 6 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Lambagaon, District Kangra, H.P.

(2.) As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.

(3.) Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 22/10/2021, the prosecutrix (name withheld) alongwith her mother came to the police station and made a complaint against the petitioner, wherein it has been alleged that on 16/10/2021 around 8:00 a.m., when she was going to school and reached near Sandhole Bridge, the petitioner, who was standing inside the rain shelter, stopped her and took her to Sujanpur in a bus. Thereafter, the petitioner took her to Uttam Vyas New Restaurant and kept her there uptill 2:30 p.m. and without her consent committed sexual intercourse with her. On 20/10/2021, the petitioner again called her and told that he has made obscene videos of her and if she did not agree to his terms, he will make the videos viral. Since the petitioner was threatening the prosecutrix, she visited Sujanpur. The petitioner again took her to Uttam Vyas New Restaurant, where she had repeatedly asked the petitioner to show her videos, but the petitioner did not show her the videos and committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the petitioner called one Siya, friend of prosecutrix, and asked her to talk to the father of prosecutrix and to told him that prosecutrix is with her. When friend of the prosecutrix called the father of prosecutrix and father of the prosecutrix asked to talk to the prosecutrix, her friend cut the phone. On the same day around 8:30 p.m. a friend of the petitioner also came to the restaurant and both of them had beer(s) there. Thereafter, they had dinner. Around 11:00-11:30 p.m. the petitioner and his friend went outside and returned after 15-20 minutes with sweets. Thereafter, friend of the petitioner went to sleep in his room, however, the petitioner took the prosecutrix to another room and committed sexual intercourse with her many times. Even on 21/10/2021, the petitioner committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and after that he let her come outside the restaurant. Consequently, FIR No. 95/2021, dtd. 22/10/2021, under Ss. 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Sec. 6 of POCSO Act, came to be registered against the petitioner. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a heinous crime and there is possibility that in case at this stage the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice and also tamper with the prosecution evidence.