Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ram Lal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 4 February, 2021
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No.136 of 2021
Reserved on: January 27, 2021.
.
Date of Decision: February 4, 2021.
Ram Lal ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 NO
For the petitioner: Mr. Ajit Sharma and Ms. Ragini Dogra, Advocates.
For the respondent: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Additional Advocate General with
Ms. Seema Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, Mr. Manoj
Bagga and Mr. Shreyak Sharda, Assistant Advocate
Generals, for the State.
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
82 of 9.9.2015 Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. 376, 506 of the IPC
2015 and Section 4 of
POCSO Act.
Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest for exploiting and raping a minor
girl for 4-5 months, has come up before this Court under Section 439 Cr.PC, seeking
regular bail.
2. A perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner had earlier filed the bail
petitions 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, which were registered as Cr.MP(M) No.1597 of
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2019 and Cr.MP(M) No.1365 of 2020 and subsequently dismissed, as withdrawn by
learned counsel, on 5.9.2019 and 14.9.2020, respectively.
.
3. In Para 13 of the bail application, the petitioner declares having no criminal
history 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 the Investigator recorded
statement of the victim under Section 154 Cr.PC. She stated that in the year, 2014,
she was a student of 8th Class. In the month of December, 2014, her uncle (BUAIE),
present petitioner, who stays downwards her house, called her to his house. At that
time, no person was present in the house. He took her inside the room, bolted the
room and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. She tried to cry, but the
accused gagged her mouth. After committing the sexual intercourse, he threatened
her that in case she revealed this to anybody, then he would do away with her life.
He further told her that in future whenever he would call her on phone, she must
quietly visit his house to have sex. Under that arrangement, he continued to call her
for 4-5 months. After 3-4 months, she told the accused that she had stopped
menstruating. On this, he stated that he would bring medicine for her, but he brought
nothing and asked her to marry someone else. In between, one Manu, who is related
to her Jijja, called her and talked to her for 2-3 days. He asked her to marry him.
Under those circumstances, she decided to solemnize marriage with Manu and they
got married in Chauntra Landrunhi temple as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. After
staying with her in-laws for three months, she returned back to her maternal home,
where she gave birth to a baby boy, who was fathered by Ram Lal. After 4-5 days of
her delivery, her aunt (BUA), Krishna Devi, wife of Ram Lal, talked to someone on
telephone and on the next day one couple visited the house of victim and told her that
they were issueless and wanted to adopt that baby. On this, she handed over her son
.
to them because her in-laws had asked her not to bring the child to their home. She
told that her parents are very poor and they were unable to take care of her. She
further told that she did not sell her child, but gave his adoption to an issueless
couple. They had given her Rs.5,000/-, asking her to take care of her health, as she
was very weak. Based on this information, Police registered the FIR mentioned
above.
5. After registration of the FIR, Police got the statement of victim recorded under
Section 164 Cr.PC. Because the accused was away from his house, as such, he could
not be arrested till 28.1.2017, when he surrendered before the Police. During
investigation, the Police traced the child and collected his DNA material.
Subsequently, DNA materials of the victim, accused and child were sent for DNA
profiling. As per report of the Laboratory, the victim was the biological mother of
the child and Ram Lal was the biological father.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that incarceration before the proof
of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.
7. 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.
REASONING:
8. The matter pertains to the year, 2017 and not only Police report under Section
173(2) Cr.PC stands filed, but even trial has commenced. Learned counsel for the
petitioner referred to certain statements and memos from the police report, prepared
under section 173(2) CrPC, copies of which the accused had duly received in
.
compliance to S. 207 CrPC. However, the documents which the Ld. Counsel referred
were neither filed with the petition, nor its copies supplied to the Court and the State.
Thus, the Court cannot base any finding on a document which is in the Counsel's
brief and not on the Court's file.
9. Simply based upon the status report, this Court cannot come to the conclusion
about the age of the victim. Otherwise also, the scientific evidence points out
towards the accused.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or
the investigating agency from further investigation per law.
13. 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,
Vacation Judge.
February 4, 2021 (ks).
