Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J
1. The present bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been maintained by the petitioner for grant of bail in case FIR
No. 40 of 2019, dated 28.11.2019, under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPCâ€) and Section 8 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act (for Short “POCSO Actâ€), registered at Women Police station Una, District Una, H.P.
2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, he is resident of
the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail.
3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 28.11.2019, the prosecutrix (name withheld) lodged a complaint against the petitioner,
alleging therein that the petitioner, who is a Chemistry teacher in Government Senior Secondary School Gondpur, used to talk to her in vulgar language
over telephone. On 9th November, 2019, the petitioner telephonically called the mother of the prosecutrix and asked her to sent the prosecutrix to his
house by saying that she has to learn something from him about Chemistry subject. On the next date, when prosecutrix reached the house of the
petitioner, she saw no one in the house, except the petitioner and when she entered the house of the petitioner, he sexually assaulted her and also
touched her private parts inappropriately. On the complaint, so made by the prosecutrix, FIR No. 40 of 2019, dated 28.11.2019, under Section 354 of
IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, came to be registered against the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including
the report of the police, carefully.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, as is
evident from the contents of the police report, wherein it has specifically come that since the petitioner used to scold the prosecutrix in front of the
other students, she roped him in a false case. Further, the petitioner is a government servant, neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution
evidence nor to flee from justice, as such, the present bail application may be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. On the other hand, learned
Additional Advocate General, has argued that since the petitioner has committed a serious offence, he may not be released on bail and his application
may be dismissed.
6. Heard. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is joining and cooperating in the investigation, he is a Government
servant and neither in a position to flee from justice, nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, and other material which has come on
record and without discussing that at this stage, this Court finds that present is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is
required to be exercised in his favour. Consequently, the bail application is allowed and in the event of his arrest in this case, the petitioner is ordered
to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bonds to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand), with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:
(i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required.
(ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
(iii) That the petitioner will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court.
7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.
