KARAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking the regular bail. It has been asserted that the police arrested the petitioner on 16/6/2023 for the commission of offences punishable under Sec. 5(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), Sec. 376 (2)(F) and 506 of IPC vide FIR No.73 of 2023 dtd. 15/6/2023 registered in Police Station, Hatli, District Mandi, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 16/6/2023. The challan has been presented before the Court on 11/8/2023. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. A perusal of the FIR shows that no offence has been made against the petitioner. The petitioner approached the learned Presiding Officer, Fast-Track Court, POCSO, Mandi for bail, however, his bail application was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner and the victim were known to each other. There is a delay of 10 days in lodging the FIR. Relation between the petitioner and the victim would not have been accepted by the society at large. The possibility of the petitioner and the victim being attracted to each other cannot be ruled out. The DNA profiling was inconclusive. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

(2.) The police filed a status report stating that the parents of the victim had gone away from their home for work on 15/6/2023 and when they returned, they found the victim to be frightened. She disclosed on enquiry that the petitioner had raped and threatened her on 5/6/2023. The petitioner again raped her on 15/6/2023. The police registered the FIR. The medical examination of the victim was conducted. As per the report of RFSL, Mandi human semen was detected on the lower, vaginal swabs, labia majora and minora swabs and vaginal slides of the victim. They were inconclusive for DNA profile. The possibility of sexual assault could not be ruled out. The date of birth of the victim was found to be 26/6/2007 as per the birth certificate and she was aged 15 years 11 months and 19 days on the date of incident. The challan has been prepared and presented against the petitioner before the Court. The matter is listed for recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses on 6/11/2023 to 8/11/2023.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.