Rakesh @ Mukesh vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 966 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 216 of 2021 Reserved on: Feb 1, 2021.

.

Date of Decision: Feb 4, 2021.

    Rakesh @ Mukesh                                                        ...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: r Mr. Gambhir Singh Chauhan, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Deputy Advocate General.

                             THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE



        FIR No.   Dated       Police Station      Sections
        3/2021    3.1.2021    Women          P.S. 376, 370, 506, 354A, 34, IPC and S.
                              Nahan, Sirmaur      6, 10, 21 of POCSO Act & S.3, 4, 5




                                                  of Immoral Trafficking Act





    Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

A boy aged 26 years, who is in custody w.e.f. 5.1.2021, for attempting to

molest a minor girl aged 16 years, threatening her and pushing her into sex trade, has come up before this Court seeking regular bail.

2. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 20.1.2021, learned Special Judge, Sirmaur district at Nahan, HP, dismissed the petition because of the nature of accusation.

3. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that the victim got her statement recorded under Section 154, Cr.PC with the incharge of Police Post

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

Gunnughat, Nahan alleging therein that they are four sisters and she is youngest one and all her elder sisters are married. Both her mother and father solemnized second marriage. Her father is a mason and her second mother did not treat her fairly and

.

always scolded her, due to which, she left her house several times. Six months prior

to the incident, she fled away from her house and went to Paonta Sahib and stayed in a Gurudwara for about five months. Thereafter, she remained with her friend Pooja,

who took her to the house of her aunt named Renu, who is having one daughter Laxmi and one son Krishna. She developed friendship with Laxmi and started living in the house of Renu. The husband of Renu and the brother-in-law (Jija) of the victim (bail petitioner herein) worked together at the same place, due to which, the

petitioner came to know about her that she was residing in their house. She further stated that Renu used to compel her to do all her household work. Renu also used to call boys in her house and asked the victim to do wrong work with them and charged

money from them. She stated that she can recognize those boys by face. Thereafter,

she managed to flee from the house of Renu and again started living in Gurudwara, where her Jija (bail petitioner) identified her and forcibly took her back to the house of Renu and he tried to molest her there. Thereafter, he threatened her that if she tried

to flee away again, then he would forcibly commit sexual intercourse with her. After 4-5 days, she again fled away from the house of Renu by taking the purse and phone

of Renu and came to Nahan. At Nahan, she used to stay in Ranital and Villa round and during nights, after finding the gate of any house, she used to enter the gate and

slept on the roof of the house. She stated that no one had molested her at Nahan. Based on the allegations, Police registered the FIR mentioned above.

4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

5. On the contrary, the State contends that the Police have collected sufficient evidence against the bail petitioner. Given that the crime is heinous, the accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail might send a wrong message to society.

REASONING:

6. Given the age of the victim and conduct of the petitioner-accused, who forcibly pushed her into sex trade, the petitioner is not entitled to any bail.

7. 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.

8. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation per law.

9. 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.

Given above, the petition is dismissed.

(Anoop Chitkara) Vacation Judge Feb 4, 2021 (mamta)