Ravi Kumar vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 3988 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

ON THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA

CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION(MAIN) NO. 1527 OF 2021

Between:-

RAVI KUMAR SON OF SH. KISHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHARDA, P.O. PRATHA, TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTRICT SOLAN,

H.P.

AGED ABOUT 19 ½ YEARS, OCCUPATION PRIVATE EMPLOYEE

... PETITIONER

(BY M/S VIPIN PANDIT & TEK CHAND, ADVOCATES)

AND

STATE OF H.P.

.. RESPONDENT

(MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR. DESH RAJ THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL WITH MR. R.P. SINGH AND MR. NARINDER THAKUR,

DEPUTY ADVOCATES GENERAL) Whether approved for reporting. Yes.

This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:

OR D ER

Bail petitioner-Ravi Kumar, who is behind bars since

1.8.2021, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under

S.439 CrPC, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 59, dated 21.7.2021,

registered at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, under S. 354D IPC

and S.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

2. Status report filed in terms of order dated 4.8.2021, reveals

that the victim-prosecutrix (name withheld) lodged a complaint at Police

Station Parwanoo, on 21.7.2021, alleging therein that bail petitioner

.

resides at a distance of 1 km from her house and he has been stalking her

for so many days. She alleged that bail petitioner keeps on pressurizing

her for marriage, as a consequence of which she is under mental stress.

She alleged that though she repeatedly conveyed to the bail petitioner that

she does not want to marry her but yet the bail petitioner stalks her. She

alleged that on 19.7.2201, at 3.30 pm, while she was grazing her cattle at

a distance of 200 metre from her house, bail petitioner contacted her and

asked her to solemnize marriage with him but she refused. In the

aforesaid background, FIR detailed herein above, came to be lodged

against the bail petitioner, who approached court of learned Special Judge

Solan, for interim bail. Initially bail petitioner was enlarged on bail but

ultimately on 31.7.2021 bail granted in his favour came to be cancelled as

a result of which, bail petitioner is behind the bars since 1.8.2021. Since

investigation is almost complete and nothing remains to be recovered

from bail petitioner. he has approached this court in the instant

proceedings.

3. Mr. Narinder Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, while

fairly admitting factum with regard to completion of investigation submits

that though nothing remains to recovered from bail petitioner but keeping

in view gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail

petitioner, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail, deserves outright

rejection. Mr. Thakur, Learned Deputy Advocate General, further contends

that there is ample evidence collected on record suggestive of the fact that

bail petitioner has been troubling victim-prosecutrix for months together

and as such, in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may not

.

only flee from justice but can cause harm to victim-prosecutrix as such,

prayer for grant of bail made on behalf of the bail petitioner, deserves

rejection outrightly.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

material available on record, this court finds that victim-prosecutrix lodged

complaint alleging therein that bail petitioner had been following/stalking

her for so many days and he constantly put pressure on her to solemnize

marriage with him. Since victim-prosecutrix is not interested to marry the

bail petitioner, she refused to meet the bail petitioner but yet he kept on

stalking her. Bare perusal of complaint nowhere discloses offence, if any,

under S.11 of Act because 'sexual harassment' as defined under S.11 of

the Act can be said to be committed when a person, with 'sexual intent'

utters any word or makes any sound, or makes any gesture or exhibits any

object or part of body with the intention that such word or sound shall be

heard, or such gesture or object or part of body shall be seen by the child;

or makes a child exhibit his body or any part of his body so as it is seen by

such person or any other person. Though S.11 (iv) of the Act talks about

stalking also but to constitute 'sexual harassment', stalking has to be with

'sexual intent'. In the instant case, though there is allegation that bail

petitioner constantly follows/stalks the victim-prosecutrix and pressurizes

her for marriage, there is no allegation that he did the same with 'sexual

intent'.

5. Though, the aforesaid aspect of the matter is to be dealt by

learned trial court in the totality of evidence led on record, but having taken

note of the complaint of victim-prosecutrix, there appears to be no reason

.

at this stage for this court to conclude guilt, if any of bail petitioner under

S.11 of the Act. Similarly, this court finds that the offence, if any under

S.354D IPC, if committed for the first time is bailable. Since there is

nothing in the status report suggestive of the fact that any other case under

S.354D stood registered against bail petitioner prior to lodging of FIR,

prayer for grant of bail made by the bail petitioner otherwise deserves to be

considered. Leaving everything aside, guilt, if any of the petitioner is yet to

established in the totality of evidence led on record by prosecution as

such, it would not be in the interests of justice to let the bail petitioner

incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when

nothing remains to be recovered from him. Apprehension expressed by

learned Deputy Advocate General that in the event of being enlarged on

bail, bail petitioner can harm victim-prosecutrix can be best met by putting

bail petitioner to stringent conditions.

6. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018,

Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018

has held that freedom of an individual can not be curtailed for indefinite

period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has further held

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is

believed to be innocent until found guilty.

7. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central

Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that

gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing

factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its

discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that

.

object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial

by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor

preventative.

8. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC

218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure

the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied

in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is

whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise

also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep

in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof,

severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the

accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that

crime.

9. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis

Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various

principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima

facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved,

apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.

10. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for

himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Bail petitioner is ordered to be

enlarged on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of

learned trial Court, besides the following conditions:

(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court

.

on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing

appropriate application;

(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor

hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

11. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or

violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency

shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

12. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to

be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the

disposal of the petition alone.

The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

Copy dasti.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 18, 2021 (vikrant)