SUNEEL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of all the three applications arising out of FIR No. 65 of 2013 registered against the petitioners and their co -accused, Krishan Lal and Jagdish under Sections 363, 366A, 506 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 in Police Station, Nirmand, District Kullu on 16.8.2013. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the status report and the Investigating Officer, SI/SHO Gambhir Chand has produced the record.

(2.) IT is disclosed from the status report as well as the record that accused -petitioner Suneel Kumar had developed intimacy with the prosecutrix somewhere 1 1/2 years ago. They both thereafter remained in constant touch with each other over cell phones. Accused -petitioner, Suneel Kumar expressed his desire to solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix on several occasions. She, however, turned down the proposal so made by him on account of being pursuing her studies and told him that she could think about her marriage only on the completion of her studies.

(3.) THE investigation is almost complete. The prosecutrix, no doubt, being born on 12.6.1996 prima facie is below 18 years of age, however, at this stage, in the given facts and circumstances, what is the role of the principal accused or his co -accused in enticing away the prosecutrix, nothing can be said with all exactness. Otherwise also, it is well established that an offender unless and until held guilty by the competent Court after holding the full trial has to be believed innocent. Any how, this Court refrains itself from making any observation qua the manner in which the occurrence allegedly took place as in that event prejudice is likely to be caused to the case of either party. However, keeping in view that all the accused -petitioners belong to district Shimla and can reasonably be believed to have roots in the society and as such there being no possibility of their fleeing away from justice or jumping over the bail, suffice would it to say that they deserve to be admitted on bail. Above all, the accused -petitioners are also of very young age because the principal accused, Suneel Kumar is 20 years of age, whereas, the age of Anil Kumar is 23 years and that of accused Sat Pal, 28 years. Therefore, it may not be in their interest to detain them well before holding them guilty with hardened criminals as in that event their future career is likely to be ruined.