Khem Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest for molesting, beating and treating the minor girls aged 6 to 9 with cruelty, has come up before this Court under Section 439 Cr.PC, seeking regular bail.

A perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner had filed a bail petition before High Court, which is permissible given the decision of a three Judges Bench of HP High Court, in Mohan Lal v Prem Chand, AIR 1980 HP 36, (Para 9 & 15), wherein the Full bench holds that a person can directly apply for an anticipatory bail or regular bail to the High Court without first invoking the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No.1368 of 2020 and was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn, on 1.10.2020.

In Para 13 of the bail application, the petitioner declares having no criminal history relating to the offences prescribing sentence of seven years and more, or when on conviction, the sentence imposed was more than three years. The status report also does not mention any criminal past of the accused.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 18.10.2019, Child Help Line received an information that Khem Chand, present bail petitioner, molests, beats and treats the young girls aged 6 to 9 with cruelty and he is related to them as uncle. On this, the Child Help Line team associated Pradhan and reached the village. On inquiry, the children told that their uncle indulges in obscene acts with them. Subsequently, medical examination of the children were got conducted and FIR mentioned above was registered and Sections 376AB of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act were inserted in the FIR. The statements of the victims were recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

On the contrary, the State contends that the crime is heinous, the accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail might send a wrong message to society.

REASONING: The matter pertains to 18.10.2019. Impliedly, the Police report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC would have been filed within the stipulated period and despite that learned counsel did not draw the attention of this Court to any of the documents, to make out a case for bail.

Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, at this stage, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail. The petition is dismissed with liberty to file a new bail application.

This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation per law.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

The petition dismissed.