The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed a petition filed seeking bail in case FIR No.55/2023, dated 10.04.2023, under Sections 376, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Court observed that there is a delay in lodging the FIR, which the prosecution has failed to explain at this stage as the victim had not mentioned the date when the petitioners had committed sexual intercourse with her.
Brief Facts:
on 10.04.2023, the complainant, i.e., the victim complained to the police, alleging therein that in the year 2022, she was studying in 9th class in Government Senior Secondary School and she was on talking terms with one Shahrukh and had developed friendship with him. He made physical relations with her without her consent. In the year, 2023, petitioner Shahrukh called her to the room of one Malik who also committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. In her complaint, the victim also alleged that whenever the petitioners committed sexual intercourse with her, they threatened her to do away with her life, in case she disclosed the incident to anyone, hence, she remained silent, but due to the repeated calls by the petitioners, she finally disclosed the entire episode to her mother. On the basis of the said complaint, the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners.
The instant petitions have been filed by the petitioners on the ground that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the victim had made vague allegations of sexual intercourse without mentioning any date, as such, the prosecution story is totally false. He further submitted that the petitioners are behind the bars since 10/11.04.2023 and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping them behind the bars for an unlimited period as there is no likelihood of completion of the trial in near future.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the petitioners are involved in a serious offence of rape and keeping in view the gravity of the offence, they are not entitled to be released on bail. He further contended that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they will try to influence the witnesses and may also tamper with the prosecution evidence.
The Court noted that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. In the instant case, the allegations against the petitioners-accused persons are that they have committed sexual intercourse with the victim without her consent. However, in her statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C., the victim had categorically stated that petitioner Shahrukh was innocent and she wanted to marry with him and she also wanted that petitioner Shahrukh should not be punished. There is a delay in lodging the FIR, which the prosecution has failed to explain at this stage as the victim had not mentioned the date when the petitioners had committed sexual intercourse with her.
The Court observed that the petitioners had been booked under Section 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act along with the other provisions of the Indian Penal Code, but mere charging of an individual under the POCSO Act, which contains stringent provisions, may not be a ground to deny the bail, rather, as per Section 31 of POCSO Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (including the provisions as to bail and bonds) have been made applicable to the proceedings under the said Act.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, allowing the petition, held that the present is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be exercised in his favour.
Case Title: Shahrukh Khan v State of Himachal Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sushil Kukreja
Case no.: CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 1698/2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. B.N. Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
