Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 5129 HP
Judgement Date : 6 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. 941 of 2024
Date of Decision: 06.05.2024
_____________________________________________________________
.
Prince Rani ...Petitioner...
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents...
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General,
for respondent No.1/State.
4._________________________________________________________
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
{{
The present bail application has been filed under Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No.12 of 2024 dated
20.04.2024, registered at Women Police Station Una, District Una, HP,
under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO
Act and Section 67B of the Information Technology Act.
2. In the bail application, it has been averred that the victim is about 17
years. The mother of the victim is running a tailor shop at Amb Bazzar. At
the said shop, the victim also helps her mother.
3. The petitioner is stated to be working in a nearby shop. The
petitioner is aged 24 years. On account of proximity of shops, where the
petitioner works and the tailor shop being run by the mother of the victim,
the petitioner has got acquainted with the victim.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
4. The petitioner is alleged to have been sexually assaulting the victim
for the last three years. The victim was under a threat from the petitioner
.
qua disclosure of the physical relationship with the petitioner. The
petitioner is also alleged to have taken some unwarranted photographs of
the victim. Even on this account, the victim was under a threat and
therefore, did not disclose the aforementioned facts to her mother.
5. From the aforementioned facts and attending circumstances, it is
evident that sexual assault on a minor victim in the case at hand
commenced, when the victim was about 14 years of age. A perusal of
Section 29 of the POCSO Act, 2012 reveals that in so far offence under
Section 3 for which, punishment has been prescribed in Section 4 is
concerned, there is a presumption that a person has committed the
offence unless the contrary is proved.
6. Nothing in the bail application has been averred qua the petitioner
being falsely implicated in the case at hand. Nor has any argument been
raised in this respect, besides the aforesaid, neither has it been averred or
argued that the present FIR has been lodged with the object of injuring
and humiliating the present bail applicant.
7. The nature and seriousness of the allegations made against the
petitioner, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the
allegations and the fact that the petitioner is not a resident of the State of
Himachal Pradesh, not only raises a reasonable possibility of the
applicant's presence being not secured but also raises a reasonable
apprehension that witnesses will be tampered.
8. Even otherwise, the FIR in the case at hand has been registered on
20.04.2024. Investigation would, therefore, be at a nascent stage. For the
.
foregoing reasons, present application is rejected.
9. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed and disposed of.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
May 06, 2024
(Gaurav)
r to
.
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!