Lekh Ram @ Suneel vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 865 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 167 of 2021 Reserved on: 29.01.2021

.

Date of Decision: Feb 04, 2021.

    Lekh Ram @ Suneel                                    ...Petitioner.
                                Versus





    State of H.P.                                              ...Respondent.

    Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1NO ___________________________________________________________________

For the petitioner: r Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate.

    For the respondent:         Mr.    Sudhir   Bhatnagar,    Additional

                                Advocate General with       Ms. Seema
                                Sharma, Mr. Narender Singh      Thakur
                                and Kamal Kant, Deputy Advocates
                                General and     Mr. Manoj        Bagga,
                                Assistant Advocate General.



                         THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE




        FIR     Dated         Police Station                     Sections
        No.
        210     08.09.2018    Sundernagar,         District 363&376 of IPC





                              Mandi, H.P.                   and 4 of POCSO
                                                            Act





    Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

The petitioner, aged 27 years, took the victim aged less than

16 years, who was friend of his sister, in a car and committed coitus

with her, which made her pregnant and later on she delivered a baby,

has come up before this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C, seeking

regular bail on the grounds that he is willing to marry her.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. A perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner filed

the bail petition before High Court, which is permissible given the

.

decision of a three Judges Bench of HP High Court, in Mohan Lal v

Prem Chand, AIR 1980 HP 36, (Para 9 & 15), wherein the Full bench

holds that a person can directly apply for an anticipatory bail or

regular bail to the High Court without first invoking the jurisdiction

of the Sessions Judge. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition

under Section 439 CrPC before this Court. However, vide order dated

06.10.2020, the same was withdrawn by the petitioner.

3. The bail petition is silent about criminal history,

however, Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Ld. Counsel for the bail petitioner

states on instructions that the petitioner has no criminal past

relating to the offences prescribing sentence of seven years and more,

or when on conviction, the sentence imposed was more than three

years. The status report also does not mention any criminal past of

the accused.

4. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on

2.3.2020, victim had gone with her friend to Nalwar fair at

Sundernagar. In the evening, the petitioner, who is brother of her

friend, volunteered to drop her at home in his car. Instead of taking

her to home, he took her to an isolated place, where in the night, he

established coitus with her. After that he brought her back to her

sister's home. The victim kept mum. However, after one month of the

incident, she telephonically informed him that she has stopped

menstruating. On this, he assured her not to worry and promised to

marry her. In between, the petitioner also got the pregnancy test of

.

the victim conducted, to which, she was tested positive. He kept her

assuring that there is nothing to worry about and he would marry

her. However, around one and half month ago, petitioner married

somewhere else. The victim still kept quiet, but 3-4 days ago, she

started complaining pain in the abdomen, on which, her mother took

her to hospital and on examination, the Medical Officer informed her

mother about her pregnancy.

r Based on these allegations, the Police

registered the FIR mentioned above. After that on 6/7 December,

2020, she gave birth to a child in Kamla Nehru Hospital, Shimla. The

doctors obtained FTA of the child, victim and that of the petitioner

and sent the same for testing to FSL, Junga. As per report of the

laboratory, petitioner was found to be the biological father of the child

and victim as mother.

5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that incarceration

before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner

and family.

6. On the contrary, the State contends that the Police have

collected sufficient evidence against the bail petitioner. Another

argument on behalf of the State is that the crime is heinous, the

accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail might send a wrong

message to society.

7. It is not a case of romantic love where the accused-

petitioner established coitus because of the passion of love. The

.

narration of facts reveals that the accused had met the girl for the

first time during fair and late in the evening, he committed sexual

intercourse with her. The love is not that spontaneous that a girl

would submit herself to a stranger within a few hours of meeting her.

Once the victim stopped menstruating, then she immediately brought

it to the notice of the accused. Instead of resorting for abortion, he

first of all checked the credibility of the victim and got the pregnancy

test done. Despite the fact that she was found to be pregnant in the

test, still instead of bringing it to the notice of the family, so that she

would have gone for abortion, he gave her repeated assurances of

marriage. The girl did not tell her pregnancy to her family under the

belief that he would come in her rescue. However, he married to

someone else, leaving the pregnant girl in lurch

8. Counsel for the petitioner has also made several other

arguments. Still, given that this Court is not inclined to grant bail, on

the reasons mentioned above, discussion of the same will be an

exercise in futility. Any detailed analysis of the evidence may

prejudice the case of the prosecution or the accused.

9. Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to

this case, at this stage, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail.

The petition is dismissed with liberty to file a new bail application.

10. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the

rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further

investigation per law.

.

11. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an

expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial

Court advert to these comments.

The petition dismissed.

Anoop Chitkara, VacationJudge.

February 04, 2021 (R.Atal)