The Himachal Pradesh High Court, while observing that the offence was of serious and grave nature and mere delay in lodging the FIR will not help the petitioners in their prayer for bail, rejected bail to two Doctors accused of raping their employer’s 13-year-old domestic helper.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya passed this order, while hearing a petition filed by Dinesh Kumar Sharma alias Bittu and Amir Khan.
The petitioners, vide separate petitions, prayed for grant of bail in case, dated 31.05.2022 registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, HP, under Sections 376-DA and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The investigation in the case is complete and the challan has been presented in the Court on 06.08.2022.
The prosecution case is that on 24.05.2022, petitioner Amir Khan forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the victim more than once and then few hours thereafter petitioner Dinesh Kumar alias Bittu committed the same offence with the victim.
Both the petitioners were employees of Chaudhary Hospital, Paonta Sahib and the victim was working as a domestic helper in the house of the owner of Chaudhary Hospital.
The allegation against the petitioners is that they committed the offence with the victim under threat. The victim could not disclose the commission of offence by petitioners to anyone under fear. On 30.05.2022 the victim felt giddy and also started vomiting. She was noticed by the daughter of the owner of Chaudhary Hospital, who asked the victim as to what had happened and the victim had disclosed the misdeeds of the petitioners to her. She then further informed the parents of the victim, who along with the victim reported the matter to the police on 31.05.2022.
The petitioners were arrested on 03.06.2022. They remained in police custody till 06.06.2022, after which, they have been in judicial custody.
As per the status report filed on behalf of the respondent, the date of birth of the victim was 03.08.2008.
Petitioners have prayed for grant of bail on the grounds that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated.
It is submitted on their behalf that the delay in lodging the FIR is suggestive of falsity of allegation. The offence is alleged to have been committed in the house of the owner of Chaudhary Hospital and it is not a case that none other was present in the premises at the relevant time. Had the case been truthful, the victim would have raised hue and cry and reported the matter to someone.
It is further submitted that the medical evidence collected by the police does not support the prosecution version. The petitioners are stated to be permanent residents of the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is submitted that there is no apprehension of their fleeing from the course of justice. Petitioners have undertaken to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed against them.
The victim as per the prosecution version was born on 03.08.2008. It means that on the date of commission of alleged offence, the victim was less than 14 years of age. A child at such a stage cannot be presumed to be of sufficient maturity. The POCSO Act has been enacted with a clear objective to protect the children from crimes against them. For such reasons only the offences under the POCSO Act have been termed to be serious, heinous and attract severe punishment.
“Petitioner Dinesh Kumar alias Bittu is 36 years old and petitioner Amir Khan is aged about 29 years. The offences alleged against them undoubtedly are of serious and heinous nature. This gains more importance when one looks at the age difference between the victim and the petitioners. No plausible reason has been made out at least prima facie on behalf of the petitioners to cast any doubt on the prosecution story at this stage. Mere delay in lodging the FIR will not help the petitioners in their prayer for bail. Keeping in view the age of the victim and she having been allegedly put into fear of life, the delay in lodging the FIR can be said to be explainable during trial.
The investigation has been completed and the police have found a prima-facie case against the petitioners. Keeping in view the facts of the case, it cannot be said that there are no prima-facie or reasonable grounds to believe that the accused have not committed the offence. As noticed above, the accusations against the petitioners are of serious and grave nature. The victim is of young age and in case of release of petitioners on bail, the possibility of petitioners trying to influence the victim and other material witnesses cannot be ruled out,” the Court observed, while rejecting the petition.