Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Police Personnel in POSCO Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent bail application, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Satyen Vaidya, has granted bail to the accused, Mangal Singh, in a case related to child sexual offenses. The judgment was pronounced on 13th June 2023 in Cr.MP(M) No. 1344 of 2023.

The petitioner, Mangal Singh, had sought bail in connection with FIR No. 15 of 2023 registered at Women Police Station, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The allegations against the petitioner stated that on 30th April 2023, he had committed sexual assault and harassment on a male child victim, who was approximately ten years old. The incident involved the petitioner inserting his hand into the child's trouser and using indecent language towards him.

During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Jagdish Thakur, contended that his client was innocent and falsely implicated in the case due to personal vendetta. It was further alleged that the petitioner had been targeted by individuals with whom he had an adverse relationship. On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General, Mr. H. S. Rawat, representing the State, opposed the bail application, highlighting the serious nature of the offense and expressing concerns about the petitioner's potential influence on prosecution witnesses, given his status as a police personnel.

After careful consideration of the arguments and perusal of the record, Justice Satyen Vaidya delivered the judgment. The court observed that while the accusations against the petitioner were grave, they were subject to proof, relying primarily on oral evidence. The court noted that pre-trial incarceration is not the general rule and emphasized that keeping the petitioner in custody until the conclusion of the trial would not serve any fruitful purpose. It was highlighted that the investigation was already complete, with the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) yet to be submitted.

Considering the circumstances, including the petitioner's permanent residency in Deonghat, Post Office Saproon, Tehsil and District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, and the absence of any likelihood of absconding, the court granted bail. To secure his release, the petitioner was required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, or any other Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class stationed at Solan.

The court imposed several conditions on the petitioner's bail, including mandatory appearance before the trial court on all dates and refraining from any direct or indirect inducement, threat, or promise to anyone acquainted with the facts of the case. It was made clear that a breach of any bail condition would lead to the cancellation of the bail. Additionally, the petitioner was prohibited from leaving India without prior permission from the court.

The court concluded by clarifying that the observations made in the order should not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. It emphasized that the trial court should decide the matter impartially, uninfluenced by any remarks made in the present order.

This judgment by the Himachal Pradesh High Court highlights the delicate balance between the right to bail and the serious nature of offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The court's decision to grant bail in this case reflects its consideration of the specific circumstances and the absence of a reasonable likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice or influencing witnesses.

Date of Decision: 13.06.2023

Mangal Singh vs State of H.P. 

Latest Legal News