Anoop Chitkara DECISION
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Court Proceedings Convened Through Video Conference
1. A boy aged 20 years, who is incarcerating upon his arrest for alluring and raping a minor girl, has come up before this Court seeking regular bail on the grounds that the family of the girl forced her to lodge a false complaint to break their love affair.
2. Based on a complaint, the police arrested the petitioner on Nov 1, 2020, in FIR No. 195 of 2020, dated 01.11.2020, registered under Sections 363, 366A & 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offices, Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 3 of the SC & ST Act, in Police Station Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, disclosing cognizable and non-bailable offences.
FACTS:
3. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that the father of the victim informed the Police Station Theog on Nov 1, 2020, regarding allurement of her daughter by the petitioner vide a written complaint. He informed the police that his daughter, who is aged 16 years, has been allured by the petitioner Rohit Sharma on 29th October, 2020 at 3.30 p.m. His daughter stayed with him up to 31st October, 2020 and he also committed rape on her. However, in the evening of 31st October, 2020, he dropped her back. Based on such information the police registered the FIR mentioned above.
4. During investigation the victim informed the police that she knew petitioner Rohit for the last three - four months and was in touch with him through Facebook as well as phone. She also informed that two-three weeks ago, petitioner had visited her home and had taken her to Primary School Kandi where in the corridor they had indulged in coitus. She further informed the police that at 9 a.m. on 29th October, 2020, Rohit called her and told her to accompany him for two - three days. Upon this at 3.20 p.m. she left home and informed her cousin that she is going out with Rohit. After walking for four - five kilometers, Rohit met her and then he took her over his bike to the house of his relative. On 30th October, 2020 they participated in a marriage where the victim stayed with him where he indulged in sexual intercourse with her. On 31st October, 2020 when Rohit received phone call from his mother then he dropped her back.
5. The petitioner's criminal history relating to the offences prescribing sentence of greater than seven years of imprisonment or when on conviction, the sentence imposed was more than three years: The contents of the petition and the status report do not reveal any criminal history.
6. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and his family.
7. While opposing the bail, the alternative contention on behalf of the State is that if this Court grants bail, such order must be subject to conditions, especially of not repeating the criminal activities.
ANALYSIS and REASONING:
8. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0215/1980 : 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, MANU/SC/0045/2005 : 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Pa........