Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, who is apprehending his imminent arrest, in FIR No.57/2020, dated 21.3.2020, registered under Sections 341, 354(A), 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offices, Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), registered in Police Station, Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, disclosing cognizable and non-bailable offences, had come up before this Court, under Section 438 Cr.PC, seeking anticipatory bail.

As per previous order dated 6.7.2020, status report stands filed.

I have heard Mr. Sarthak Mehta, learned counsel, for the petitioner, Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State and have gone through the status report as well as copy of FIR, copy of statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also the copy of MLC.

There is no criminal history against the bail petitioner.

Without commenting on the merits of the statements, prima facie statement of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C., is contradictory to her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and further it is also contradictory to the version of the child victim on various counts. Giving details of such contradictions, at this stage, may be prejudicial to the victim as also to the case of prosecution. Another aspect which is important to mention is that the husband of the victim is serving in Police Department and is presently posted as Head Constable in 4th Battalion Jungle Berry, District Hamirpur. The accused is also resident of the same village and is fully aware of the fact that the husband of the complainant is working in the Police Department and also he would know the consequences of committing such an act because of the victim's connectivity with the Police Department. Another aspect which is worth mentioning is the age of the accused person, who is aged 35 years. The allegations are that in the presence of father-in-law of the complainant, he alongwith co-accused, tried to molest the females.

In the overall scenario, it would be unjust to deny bail to the accused. The status report further mentions that the victim had filed two FIRs which shows that she is fully aware of the system of filing FIRs and complaints, coupled with the fact that her husband works in the Police Department.

For all the aforesaid reasons, present petition is allowed and interim order dated 28.5.2020, is made absolute on the same terms and conditions.

The Court Master shall handover an authenticated copy of this order to the counsel for the petitioner, and to the Learned Advocate General, if they ask for the same.