MANISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, filed under Sec. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner is seeking bail in case FIR No. 10/2022, dtd. 15/2/2022, registered at Women Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P., under Ss. 363, 354-B, 376, 323, 473, 506 and 34 of IPC, Ss. 4 and 8 of POCSO Act and Ss. 3/181 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 14. 02.2022, the complainant (mother of the victim) moved a written complaint at Women Police Station, Baddi, alleging therein that her daughter used to take tuition in the neighborhood and used to return home by 6:30 p.m., however, on that day, she did not return. The complainant searched her daughter everywhere and also inquired about her from her friends and when she went to the tuition center, the tuition teacher, told her that her daughter had left the tuition center at 6:15 p.m. However, around 9:20 p.m., the victim came home, but she was scared. On asking, she disclosed that when she was returning home after tuition, one white colour car came, in which, three boys namely Aman, Manjot and Manish were sitting. Accused Aman called her near the car and when she went there, she was dragged inside the car and the accused put cloth in her mouth. Thereafter, the accused took the vehicle towards Sheetalpur side. Accused Manish was driving the vehicle. Accused Aman and Manish took off her clothes and started touching her private parts. When she resisted, they gave beatings to her. Since it was a secluded place, nobody could hear her cries. After some time, accused left the victim near a park and threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone or else they would kill her. Consequently, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be registered against the accused.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further submitted that taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, i.e. 24 years, if he is not enlarged on bail, his career will be ruined. He also submitted that the trial is not going to be completed in near future, as the prosecution has examined only two witnesses out of twenty four witnesses, as such, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period.