DALJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present bail application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 110 of 2017, dated 20.11.2017, under Zand Section 6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kot Kehloor, District Bilaspur, H.P.

(2.) As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. It is further averred that as he demanded his money back from the father of the prosecutrix, so he got registered a false case against him. As per the petitioner, there was an understanding between his and the family of the prosecutrix that as and when the prosecutrix completes 18 years of age, marriage will be solemnized amongst the petitioner and the prosecutrix. The petitioner . has also averred that the prosecutrix was engaged with him and he gave Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lac) to her family as they required the same. The petitioner asked the father of the prosecutrix to return the money, so the relationship inter se their families became strained. The matter was reported to the panchayat, however, before the decision of the panchayat, the prosecutrix reported falsely to the police. Lastly, the petitioner prays that he may be granted bail.

(3.) Police reports stand filed. As per the police report, on 20.11.2017, the prosecutrix, by way of a complaint, reported to the police that she is a student of 10+2 and the petitioner became her friend. As per the prosecutrix, the petitioner used to talk with her. The petitioner asked the prosecutrix to meet him and when she met him, he forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the petitioner again asked the prosecutrix to come and threatened to kill her or himself. The prosecutrix refused to meet the petitioner and the matter came into the knowledge of her parents. Panchayat settled the matter and the prosecutrix was given Rs. 2,00,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner did not desist from his activities and when the prosecutrix again went to meet her, he forcibly sexually assaulted her. It is further averred in the complaint that the petitioner started threatening the prosecutrix and her family members. On the basis of the complaint, so filed by the prosecutrix, a case was registered against the petitioner and the police investigation ensued. The prosecutrix was medically . examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The police prepared spot map and statements of the witnesses were also recorded. Record, qua date of birth of the prosecutrix, was also obtained. Record qua money transactions between the family of the prosecutrix and the petitioner was also obtained. The investigation further revealed that in the 2016 the petitioner was engaged with the prosecutrix and for that Rs.2,00,000/- was given to the family of the prosecutrix, but now the petitioner is demanding his money back. The petitioner has sexually assaulted the prosecutrix and also threatening her and her family. Now the petitioner is co-operating in the investigation of the case, but he is misleading the police. The petitioner is very clever person and two criminal cases are pending against him in Anandpur Sahib. The petitioner is in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and he is also in a position to flee from justice, so it has been prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.