Where Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt, Benefit Must Go To The Accused: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction Lok Adalat Award Cannot Override Registered Lease Deed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Execution Petition for Eviction Deemed Conveyance Does Not Enlarge Title — Civil Court Must Adjudicate Ownership Disputes: Bombay High Court Common Intention Must Be Proved—No One Can Be Convicted Solely for Being Named Among a Group: Calcutta High Court Mere Abusive Language or Threat, Without Sexual Colour, Does Not Attract Section 354A IPC: Delhi High Court Forcing a Child to Carry the Trauma Is an Assault on Dignity: Gujarat High Court Allows Termination of 15-Week Pregnancy of 14-Year-Old Rape Survivor Framing of Charge is Not a Final Order, No Appeal Lies Under Section 14A of SC/ST Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Interest Earned from Axis Bank Is ‘Attributable’ to Credit Business – Not a Separate Source of Income: ITAT Chennai Grants 80P Deduction Must Be Proved, Not May Be Proved: Karnataka High Court Upholds Triple Murder Conviction On Complete Chain Of Circumstantial Evidence Statutory Scheme Overrides Hereditary Claims: Kerala High Court Upholds Executive Officer Appointment at Malamakkavu Ayyappa Temple No Mid-Stream Change In Examination Centre Once Exams Are Underway:  Orissa High Court Draws Line On Judicial Interference Forest Allegation Found Baseless, Petitioner Had Personal Grudge: NGT Dismisses Plea Alleging Illegal Mining in Raisen Protected Forest CPC Has No Role in Consumer Forums: National Commission Slams Procedural Missteps in Insurance Complaint Transfer Case Permit Is Not a Formality, It’s a Legal Necessity: Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Insurer to ‘Pay and Recover’ for Accident Caused by Vehicle Plying Outside Authorized States A Compromise Before Court Is Not a Private Contract but a Solemn Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail Senior Citizens Misled with FD Promises Can’t Be Bound by Insurance Contracts: Chandigarh State Commission Upholds Full Refund with Interest No Specific Forum Under Trust Act to Adjudicate Election Disputes Involving Fraud: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction Mere Presence is Not Conspiracy: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Ganja Case Where Intermediate Quantity Alone Recovered from Accused Sufficient Cause Is Not a Matter of Sympathy, But Substance: Bombay High Court Rejects 645-Day Delay in Filing Review Petition

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