DEVENDER KALLU Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that FIR No. 56 of 2022, dtd. 27/6/2022 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station BSL Colony, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 363 and 376(3) of IPC and Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). As per the prosecution, the victim's grandmother made a complaint on 27/6/2022 that the victim was found missing from her home on 26/6/2022. The police registered the FIR. The victim was found at Baddi. She disclosed that she had left her home with Rs.500.00 to Baddi. The petitioner offered her a lift and took her to his home, where he raped her. The police arrested the petitioner on 8/7/2022. The petitioner has been falsely implicated. As per the Entry No. 10, dtd. 1/7/2022, the victim was found roaming by the villagers, who told this fact to Pradhan and Pradhan informed the police. The prosecution version that the victim was recovered from the house of the petitioner has been made doubtful. The victim had left the home voluntarily and the petitioner had not enticed her to leave her home. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, this petition.

(2.) The petition is opposed by filing a status report, asserting that the victim's grandmother informed the police that the victim was missing. The police recovered the victim at Baddi. She revealed on inquiry that she had gone from Mandi to Baddi with Rs.500.00. The petitioner took the victim to his home and raped her. The victim was medically examined. The victim duly identified the petitioner in the Test Identification Parade. The date of birth of the victim was found to be 24/11/2008 and she was less than 14 years of age on the date of the incident. The challan was prepared and presented before the Court of Learned Special Judge, (POCSO), Mandi, who held that the matter did not fall within his jurisdiction. This order was challenged before the High Court but the revision was dismissed. The challan has been prepared and presented before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Arjun Lal, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.