Naresh Kumar Gupta vs State of Himachal Pradesh

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 their arrest, in case FIR No. 232 of 2017, dated 06.12.2017, under Section 354A(I) IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P.

As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, thus he may be released on bail.

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 06.12.2017 a complaint was received by the police from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Amb, wherein the prosecutrix has alleged that she is sixteen years of age and on 20.10.2017 when the wife of the petitioner was away, the petitioner, who is uncle (chaha) of the prosecutrix, called the prosecutrix to his rented house on the pretext of preparing meals. The petitioner, after recollecting the memories of the deceased father of the prosecutrix started crying and he initially hugged her and thereafter he started touching the prosecutrix indecently. The petitioner forcibly caught hold of her and started fondling with her breasts. The prosecutrix somehow rescued herself from the clutches of the petitioner. It is further averred that that the petitioner taking advantage of weak state of mind of the mother of the prosecutrix wants to take custody of the prosecutrix, however, the custody was given to maternal aunt of the prosecutrix by the order of Chairman, Child Welfare Committee, Una. The prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her aunt and the police refused to take any action, so the prosecutrix knocked the door of the Court and the Court forwarded the complaint of the prosecutrix to Police Station, Amb, for appropriate action, as per the law. The investigation ensued and spot map was prepared and the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. Record qua date of birth of the prosecutrix was also procured and as per the record, the prosecutrix was born on 20.07.2001 and accordingly her age at the time of the offence was sixteen years and four months. The statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As per the prosecution, the petitioner is very clever person and he is concealing the facts, so his custodial interrogation is required. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be rejected.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Law Officer for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is resident of the place and he is joining and co-operating in the investigation, so his custodial interrogation is not at all required. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. Conversely, the Law Officer has argued that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has further argued that the petitioner has committed a serious offence, so his bail application be dismissed.

At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is resident of the place, neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, he is joining and co-operating in the investigation and also the allegations imputed in the complaint, so filed by the prosecutrix, and also other ancillary circumstances, which have come on record, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 232 of 2017, dated 06.12.2017, under Section 354A(I) IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.

(ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iii) That the petitioner will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.