PINKU SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner, who is in judicial lockup since 28.1.2015, has approached this Court for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case FIR No.10 of 2015, dated 19.01.2015, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offence Act, registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Sequel to orders dated 17.01.2018 and 2.2.2018, ASI Rajinder Singh, Police Station, Baddi, has come present in Court alongwith the record of the case. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the investigating agency, perusal whereof suggest that FIR, detailed hereinabove, came to be registered against the bail petitioner at the behest of the complainant, namely Sh. Santosh Kumar, who alleged that bail petitioner kidnapped her minor daughter and thereafter kept her in illegal custody. As per complainant, her daughter had gone to school on 29.12.2014, but since she did not return, he made certain inquiries and he has apprehension that bail petitioner enticed her. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, police conducted investigation and on 28.1.2015 recovered daughter of the complainant from the house of the bail petitioner at village Kudrani. Police after having recovered minor girl from the house of the bail petitioner also arrested him on 28.1.2015 and since then he is in custody.

(3.) Mr. Dalip Kumar Sharma, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner, while praying for grant of bail, contended that bare perusal of the record/status report, clearly suggest that victim had joined the company of the bail petitioner of her own volition and at no point of time she was compelled by the bail petitioner to accompany him. While referring to the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mr. Sharma, contended that bail petitioner and victim were known to each other for quite considerable time and both of them had agreed for marriage inter se them. Mr. Sharma, further contended that no definite evidence has been collected on record by the investigating agency suggestive of the fact that at the time of alleged incident, victim was minor, rather report of FSL clearly suggests that victim was 17 years of age at the time of alleged incident. Mr. Sharma, further contended that FIR came to be lodged against the bail petitioner after 22 days of alleged incident and no explanation, if any, has been rendered on record by the investigating agency for delay in lodging the FIR. Mr. Sharma, further contended that for the last three years, bail petitioner is in custody for no fault of him and as such, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.