SUNIL DUTT Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this petition under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') for grant of bail in case FIR No. 3 of 2018, dated 19.05.2018, under Sections 376, 511, 201, 34, 177 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') and Sec. 3 (1) (w) (ii) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act, registered at Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P.

(2.) For enlarging the petitioner on bail, it has been canvassed that the petitioner has been implicated falsely in present case without any allegation or evidence against him; he has no role in commission of offence and there is change in version of the statement of the complainant with regard to manner in which alleged offence was committed. Further that even if prosecution case is considered to be true, there is nothing on record to infer that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence and it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner and, therefore, the rejection of bail by the learned Sessions Judge vide order, dated 22.09.2018, is unwarranted, whereas, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the statement of prosecutrix, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. It is also canvassed that role and conduct of the present petitioner cannot be equated with co-accused Deepak Singh, whose bail application has been rejected by this Court on 20.09.2018, dismissing Cr.M.P.(M) No.921 of 2018, titled as Deepak Singh vs. State of H.P.

(3.) Before dealing with the case in hand, it is apt to refer to the principles laid down and factors culled out by the apex Court, required to be taken into consideration at the time of consideration of bail applications by the Courts, which have also been referred in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 921 of 2018, however, same are being reproduced in succeeding paras.