DEEPAK SOOD Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to 'Cr.P.C.' for short), the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 60 of 2017, dated 23.04.2017, registered at Police Station Boileauganj (West), Shimla, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to 'IPC' for short) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act for short). According to the petitioner, an FIR i.e. FIR No. 89 of 2017 was registered against him at Police Station Sadar, Hamirpur at the instance of the present alleged child victim under Section 354-D of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Pursuant to lodging of the said FIR, the petitioner was arrested by the Hamirpur police. In an application filed by him under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.), petitioner was ordered to be released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur vide order dated 26.04.2017 so passed in bail application No. 26 of 2017. Further as per the petitioner, after he was released in FIR No. 89 of 2017, he was again arrested on 27.04.2017 in connection with FIR No. 60 of 2017, which stands registered against him at Police Station Boileauganj (West) Shimla. It is in connection with said FIR, the petitioner has filed the present bail petition inter alia on the ground that a false FIR stands registered against him as the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged against him in the FIR.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General. I have also perused the status report which stands filed by learned Deputy Advocate General. It is an undisputed fact that at the behest of the present prosecutrix, an FIR was registered against the present petitioner at Police Station Sadar, Hamirpur, under Section 354 D of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. This FIR was registered on 19.04.2017 inter alia on the ground that prosecutrix was allegedly telephonically informed by the petitioner on 19.04.2017, at around 3:00 p.m. that he was coming to Hamirpur from Chandigarh and that the prosecutrix should meet him near the Petrol Pump. As per the prosecutrix, she brought this fact in the notice of her mother, who told her to proceed and also instructed her that she (mother of the prosecutrix) would be coming behind in a vehicle. As per the prosecutrix, she stood alone on the road where petitioner came in his vehicle bearing registration No. HP 62B-1040 which was being driven by him. As soon as the vehicle reached near her, the petitioner forcibly caught hold of her and forced her to sit on the front seat of the vehicle which was resisted to by her. He took her in the vehicle for a distance of about ½ km, whereafter the vehicle of the mother of the prosecutrix overtook the vehicle of the accused. It was further mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner was studying in a school at Shimla and that the petitioner used to follow her after school hours which fact stood reported by the prosecutrix to her mother and as the petitioner did not desist from his acts, her mother got her admitted in a school at Hamirpur. It was on these facts that the FIR was registered. Beyond this, nothing more was mentioned in the said FIR.

(3.) It is also a matter of record that in a bail application so preferred by the present petitioner before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail vide order dated 26.04.2017. While releasing the petitioner on bail, it was held by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur that there were variations in the statement of the prosecutrix so recorded under section 154 of Cr.P.C and the one recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Hamirpur, which created doubts regarding the involvement of the accused.