SAGAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dtd. 5/9/2022, whereby bail petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail, in the event of his arrest in FIR No. 170, dtd. 19/8/2022, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh under S. 376 IPC, respondent-State, has filed status report and Investigating Officer has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

(2.) Perusal of record reveals that on 19/8/2022, complainant namely Sikander Singh lodged a complaint at Police Station Poanta Sahib, alleging therein that the victim-prosecutrix (name withheld) is his younger sister and a divorcee. He alleged that his sister, victim-prosecutrix disclosed to him that in August, 2021, she had come in contact with the present bail petitioner through Instagram and since then they had been meeting each other. He alleged that the victim-prosecutrix told him that the present bail petitioner repeatedly sexually assaulted her against her wishes. He disclosed to the police that on 6/9/2021, bail petitioner came to meet his sister and took her in a room near barrage and thereafter sexually assaulted her under the pretext of marriage. He alleged that the bail petitioner extorted Rs.1,20,000.00 from the victim-prosecutrix on different dates. As per complainant, lastly, bail petitioner sexually assaulted his sister against her wishes on 25/6/2022 at Paonta Sahib. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR detailed herein above came to be lodged against the present bail petitioner, who pursuant to order dtd. 5/9/2022 has joined the investigation.

(3.) Mr. Narinder Guleria, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to joining of investigation by bail petitioner, submits that though nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner but keeping in view gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve leniency and as such, his prayer for bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Guleria, further states that there is overwhelming evidence collected on record suggestive of the fact that the bail petitioner besides sexually assaulting the victim-prosecutrix, also extorted money from the victim-prosecutrix on different dates as such, the bail petitioner needs to be dealt with sternly. He states that since the statement of victim-prosecutrix is yet to be recorded as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail, as in that event, he may not only flee from justice but may also harm the victimprosecutrix and may indulge in such activities again.