The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition, filed for seeking the pre-arrest bail. The Court observed that Section 30 of the POCSO Act provides that in the offenses under Sections 3, 5, 7, and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that such person has committed, abetted, or attempted to commit the offense unless the contrary is proved.
Brief Facts:
It has been asserted that dated 13.4.2023 was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The victim was told by the petitioner that he wanted to marry her. She told the petitioner that he was already married and she could not marry him. The petitioner took her on the night of 11.4.2023 from her home and he maintained sexual relations with the victim without her consent. The victim revealed the incident to her parents. The matter was reported to the police.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent admitted that the petitioner had raped the minor victim despite knowing that he was married and having one child. This shows the grievous nature of the offenses committed by the petitioner. The social impact of the crime committed by the petitioner is serious and he should not be released on bail.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted the victim had specifically stated that the petitioner took her and maintained a sexual relationship with her without her consent. The statement of the petitioner is corroborated by the report of the DNA analysis, which shows that the DNA of the sample taken from the undergarment of the petitioner matched the DNA of the victim. Section 30 of the POCSO Act provides that in the offenses under Sections 3, 5, 7, and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that such person has committed, abetted, or attempted to commit the offense unless the contrary is proved. It was submitted that this presumption does not apply during the bail.
The Court observed that presumption will apply after the charges are framed and not before that. Without saying anything about this proposition of law and assuming it to be correct, the charges have been framed in the present case and the presumption will be squarely attracted. The legislature enacted the POCSO Act to protect the children from themselves as well as from others who are minded to prey upon them.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, dismissing the petition, held that keeping in view the gravity of the offense and the circumstances in which it was committed, the petitioner is not entitled to grant bail.
Case Title: Rohit Kumar v State of Himachal Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Case no.: Cr. MP(M) No. 2271 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sativ Chauhan
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Jitender Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
