Justice Virender Singh, Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mere Addition Of S. 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act Won’t Take Away Power To Grant Anticipatory Bail U/S 482 BNSS: Himachal Pradesh High Court
|The Himachal Pradesh High Court explained that if there is no reference with regard to ingredients of the SC/ST Act, the bar under Section 18 does not come in the way of the Court to grant relief to the accused.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that mere addition of Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) does not take away the power of Court to grant anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The Court held thus in an Application filed by an accused apprehending his arrest in respect of the FIR registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Virender Singh observed, “Once, it has been held that the said statement cannot be treated as part of the FIR, then, to the considered opinion of this Court, there is no legal hesitation for this Court to entertain the present application. As such, mere addition of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC&ST Act, does not take away the powers of this Court to grant relief, under Section 482 of the BNSS, as, from bare reading of the FIR, no case is made out, under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC&ST Act.”
The Bench explained that if there is no reference with regard to ingredients of the SC/ST Act, in that eventuality, the bar as created by Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, does not come in the way of the Court to grant relief to the accused.
Senior Advocate Ashok Sharma represented the Applicant while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Tejasvi Sharma, Advocates Kritika Sharma, and Gaurav Kumar represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
As per the Applicant/Accused’s case, the Complainant had developed intimacy with him in 2023, when he had gone to Chamba, in connection with health issues of his father. He was ordinarily a resident of Mumbai and working in a private company. The Complainant had disclosed her age as 22 years when he met her for the first time in 2023. He claimed that the entire case against him is false and fabricated. However, the Complainant alleged that on the pretext of marrying her, the accused developed physical relations with her.
Allegedly, the relations were firstly made in 2021 and according to the Complainant, her age at that time was 17 years. It further alleged that they were planning to solemnize their marriage in April 2025, however, the accused’s mobile phone was found to be switched off thereafter. It was also alleged that despite best efforts to contact him, the Complainant could not do the same, nor he made any call to her. Hence, an FIR was registered against him. Being aggrieved by this, the accused approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “As stated above, in the FIR, in question, there is no reference with regard to the fact that the victim was allegedly raped on the ground that she belongs to scheduled caste community.”
Considering the fact that the investigation is complete and the accused has joined the investigation, the Court was of the view that the dismissal of the Application would be nothing, but pretrial punishment, which is prohibited under the law, as the presumption of innocence is available to the Applicant until proven guilty.
“At the time of deciding the bail application, detailed discussion of the evidence, so collected, by the prosecution or about the defence, which has been taken, by the applicant, should be avoided, as, it would cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution, as well as, to that of the accused”, it further noted.
The Court, therefore, ordered that the accused shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
“The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when charge sheet will be filed in the Competent Court of Law. … It is made clear that the respondent State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicant”, it also clarified.
Accordingly, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused.
Cause Title- Sahil Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:19540)
Appearance:
Applicant: Senior Advocate Ashok Sharma and Advocate Anubhuti Sharma.
Respondents: AAG Tejasvi Sharma, Deputy Advocate General (DAG) Rohit Sharma, Advocates Kritika Sharma, and Gaurav Kumar.