NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner namely, Naresh Kumar, who is behind the bars since 23.5.2019, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying therein for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.22 of 2019, dated 18.5.2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 354-D, 343 & 420 of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at police Station, Sunni, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Sequel to order dated 24.6.2019, ASI Dilu Ram, has come present alongwith the record. Mr. Sanjeev Sood, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report, prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned.

(3.) Close scrutiny of the record/status report, reveals that on 18.5.2019 complainant namely, Ramesh Chand lodged a complaint at police Post, Dhami, District Shimla, H.P., alleging therein that her minor daughter (hereinafter referred to as the 'prosecutrix'), who had gone to computer centre on 17.5.2019, has not returned. He alleged that despite his best efforts, he could not find out the whereabouts of her minor daughter and he has suspicion that person namely, Naresh Kumar i.e. present bail petitioner has kidnapped her minor daughter. Since jurisdiction of the case was found to be of police Station, Sunni, complaint, as referred hereinabove, came to be transferred to police Station, Sunni, District Shimla, H.P. On the basis of aforesaid complaint having been made by the complainant, a case under section 363 of IPC came to be registered against the bail petitioner. On 23.5.2019, police recovered the prosecutrix from Totu, who in her statement made under Sections 161 Cr.P.C as well as 164 Cr.P.C., alleged that though she knew bail petitioner for the last six months, but he on the pretext of marriage allured her and subsequently eloped with her. She alleged that bail petitioner took her to Solan and sexually assaulted her against her wishes. She stated before the Magistrate that bail petitioner took a room on rent at Solan and thereafter kept her in illegal confinement for 4-5 days. On the basis of aforesaid statement having been made by the prosecutrix, a case under Sections 366, 376, 354-D, 343 & 420 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, also came to be registered against the bail petitioner.