Himachal Pradesh High Court
Karam Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 4 February, 2021
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No.65 of 2021
Reserved on:January 19, 2021.
.
Date of Decision: February 4, 2021.
Karam Chand
...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. Sandeep Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional Advocate General with
Mr. Bhupinder Thakur and Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Deputy
Advocates General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer,
for the respondent- State.
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
21 of 1.5.2018 Pachhad, District Sirmour, 376, 342 of the IPC
2018 H.P and Section 4 of
POCSO Act
Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest, for raping a minor child
aged 13 years, 2 months and 16 days, has come up before this Court under Section
439 CrPC, seeking regular bail.
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 14.6.2018, learned Special
.
Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P, dismissed the petition because the heinous
nature of the offence.
3. The bail petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Sandeep
Chauhan, learned 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 1.5.2018, the SHO of
Police Station, Pachhad and Sarahan received a written complaint against the
accused, wherein a 13 years old girl, alleged that she is a student and study in
Nainatikker school. On the day of the incident, she had not gone to school and was
at home with her sister. Her mother had gone to her job. At 3-3:30 daytime, when
her sister had gone to lintel/roof of the house and was listening songs on her mobile
phone and she was watching TV in the room, Karam Chand, who also stays with her
brother-in-law, came there. He asked for water. When she went inside the room to
bring water, he suddenly came and bolted the room from inside. He caught hold of
her from her arm and gagged her mouth. After that, he made her lie on the bed and
took off her clothes. Thereafter, he committed forcible coitus with her. On hearing
her shrieks, her sister-in-law came there across the road and knocked the door.
Thereupon, she was able to rescue herself from Karam Chand and unbolted the door.
Then, her sister-in-law snatched her from the room and bolted the door of the room,
confining Karam Chand in the room itself. Then, the victim informed her sister-in-
law about the sexual act. After sometime, her brother also reached home and they
made a complaint to the police on telephone, which led to registration of the FIR
mentioned above. The police started conducting investigation and arrested the
.
accused on the same day. On next day, the statement of the victim was recorded
under Section 164(5) Cr.PC. The investigation further revealed that the real brother-
in-law of the victim is Pawan Kumar who works as a Driver of Karam Chand and
due to this reason the victim also used to call Karam Chand as Jijja. On number of
times, Karam Chand would visit the house alone and on that day he had also come to
their house where her sister-in-law gave him food. At that time, her sister was
listening the songs by plugging in the earphones. The investigation further revealed
the age of the victim as 13 years, 2 months and 16 days. The police got medical
examination of the victim wherein the scientific evidence was collected and
subsequently sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. The Laboratory deducted human
semen on the vaginal swab, her Pajama and underwear of the victim.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a first offender
and incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the
petitioner and family.
6. On the contrary, learned Deputy Advocate General contends that offence is
heinous, accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail is likely to send a wrong
message to the society.
REASONING:
7. The scientific evidence has already established the sexual intercourse with a
girl aged just 13 years. The presence of the semen reveals that the accused not only
penetrated, but also ejaculated in the vaginal canal. The accused is aged 33 years, a
married man and was guest in the house where he allegedly raped a child. As such,
he is not entitled to 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 with liberty
to file a new bail application.
10. 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 is dismissed.
Anoop Chitkara,
Vacation Judge.
February 4, 2021 (ks).
