Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: Feb 4 vs State Of H.P on 4 February, 2021
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. 52 of 2021
.
Reserved on: Jan 28, 2021.
Date of Decision: Feb 4, 2021.
Vaneet Kumar ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. ...Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 NO
For the petitioner: Mr. N.S. Chandel, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Vinod Gupta,
r Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr.Sudhir Bhatnagar, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.
Seema Sharma, Narinder Singh Thakur, Dy.A.Gs &
Mr.Manoj Bagga, Asstt. Advocate General.
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
168/2020 3.8.2020 Nagrota Bagwan, Distt. 341, 323, 354, 354B,
Kangra 354C, 376, 376D,
506, 34, IPC and 6,
POCSO Act
Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest, for helping his friend to
forcibly establish coitus with a girl aged 17 years, has come up before this Court
seeking regular bail on the grounds that there is no direct or indirect evidence
connecting the petitioner to the alleged crime.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the
concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 13.10.2020 Ld. Special Judge,
.
Fast Track Special Court (under POCSO Act), Kangra at Dharamshala, HP,
dismissed the petition because of the nature of the offence.
3. The bail petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. N.S. Chandel,
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinod Gupta, leanred 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 3.8.2020, the
Investigating Officer of Police Station, Dharamshala recorded statement of the
victim, aged 17 years, under Section 154, Cr.PC. The victim complained that she
was a student of Class +2 and her date of birth is 24.8.2003. She stated that in
January, 2020, she befriended Sandeep Kumar alias Shallu on facebook and
thereafter, they also started talking on phone. On 4.7.2020, she had gone to Nagrota
due to some personal work, where Sandeep Kumar met her. She had to return back
to her home but she did not find bus and on this, Sandeep Kumar, who had a scooty
with him, offered to drop her to her home. At about 1.00 p.m. when both of them
had crossed Nagrota, then Sandeep parked the scooty on the side of the road.
Thereafter, both of them went down in the forest and started talking. After 5-7
minutes, six boys came there and one of them was Parvesh Kumar. The victim knew
Parvesh Kumar ,as they met in a marriage at village Massal and they also remained
in touch on mobiles for some time. When these boys came there, then first of all,
they slapped the victim as also Sandeep Kumar. After that, they forced the victim to
undress. Subsequently, accused Ravi Kumar aged 6 years started making her video,
when she was nude. When due to shame, she started to raise her salwar and tried to
.
cover her face, then they threatened her to show her face and put off the salwar. Due
to fear, she did it and other boys were beating Sandeep Kumar. Sandeep told them
to leave him as he serves in Army. Subsequently, they left Sandeep and then Ravi
closed the video making. Parvesh and other four boys (Rohit A-2, Munish A-5,
Vaneet A-4 and Akshay A-1), who were talking with each other, caught hold of
Sandeep. Thereafter, Ravi Kumar, who was the eldest among all of them, caught
hold of her arm and took her in the shrubs on the side. He forced to undress her and
committed rape upon her. When she opposed, then he gave slaps to her. When he
was forcibly establishing coitus with her, at that time, other boys had caught hold of
Sandeep and as such, Sandeep could not help her. Later on, all of those persons left
and threatened them that in case they revealed this incident to anyone, then the video
clip so made, would be made viral. After that, Sandeep dropped her home and she
did not disclose it to anyone. Subsequently, Parvesh made a phone call to her and
told her that his friend wanted to meet her. Parvesh also sent her the video clip,
which they had made on that day and told her that in case she did not come, the video
would be made viral. However, she refused to go. In between Parvesh told her that
Ravi, Rohit, Munish and Akshay were residents of village Bhangali, Post Office
Jharet Jagiyan. Because of the fear that the video would go viral, she kept quiet.
Based on this information, the Police registered the FIR mentioned above.
5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that incarceration before the proof of
guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family. Mr. N.S. Chandel,
Senior Advocate states that the petitioner has no role.
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.
REASONING:
7. The victim did not say that it was Vaneet, who had committed rape upon her
but she specifically stated that he alongwith Rohit, Munish and Akshay caught hold
of her friend Sandeep Kumar and due to that reason, Sandeep could not save her
from being raped by Ravi Kumar. The conduct of the accused to ensure that one of
his accomplice take advantage of the isolation of a young girl with a boy and forced
her to establish coitus with him, would not enttle him for bail.
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.
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)
Vacation Judge
Feb 4, 2021 (mamta)
