Harun Alias Haroon Khan v. State Of Haryana


2023:PHHC:166913

  
      

 


   

  







   
!!
!   

!  



 "# 

!
 !   #

   
 




  

 

 
 

!   #$ 


  

 
 
 
!"#


$

$ % 
 
#&"

'
(
 
 %
'


 
( 
 
' 

)*+
,
"!#

!

-# .-..

 
-

/$/


 
"!.

*$
 

 
 
)0 
1 (
2  
, 
  .


' 



3 3


"

-# .-..

 
&"-



 


% 
4
5% 
%
4(6


% 


7 
4

 
%% 



8 
 
4 

% 


'%


7
9
 
 


%
 
% 



4

%

4



%
/
 
 




4


 


 
(


4
%


4

 


4


 
4
 
4
 
'

 

 
%'

 

4
 
 


%  "



 


 



 

'
 % 

 



% 

'
 

'

% 
 34 


4







)*+

'
 


' 


%
%

 %
'


 


 
4
'

 %


% 

 



 
(
  
 


 

4

 



%
 


 

'

 
  
4
4 

  !


 




):


"

- .-..


'

 

8 
 


 
'


 
 

 
 

 '



%


 





 

4

% 
 
*

 '% 

'


 



'
 

%

  ; ; 




%% 

 


*

'
 
 

<3



% 
 



 
4


7  
 

 %

 
8%  

<3.
5%
6

' 



 


 

4







*

'
 
 


.& -!

.-."
<3"
4

 
'


$ 
'4


 

 

 


<3=






% 
 %



%

 


  =












:

 

%



 
 %


%  '

 

 
 


%  ', as there is no change in circumstances. On merits, he has contended that the child was wrongfully confined by the petitioner in the bathroom of the Mosque. Noises could also be heard from inside the bathroom which led Munfed call


Sajid to check if there is any trouble. The act by these two men of capturing the incident was to only help the minor child and his family members to know what wrongful act was being committed upon the child by the petitioner. He further contends




%

 3 


 
4


(
 
4 

 


'%


7 


4
%


%%  
4 

   

 
$ 




 

 
  

%%   

4 





' 


%

  
43' 


% 
'

 

 

% 
%


% 
'

 


 


  ;% 

%

> 

 


 
  & < 
  
%
 
8 


$ 


'
 


 

8 
 
 
 


  4 


 

 %'


 

4


(


 

 


 %
4 

'
4



 
/

 %
' 

 

'
 
   
%  

%





%

' 







4

%


 
 %
' 



 
 
*

 




 


 




 



 


4 
 


 
 
4

$ 
 
4 

  

 

 

'

8.

Further this court is of the view that while dealing with cases arising out of the POCSO Act, a Court is called upon to balance the "public cause" of the society at large against the "private interest/right". Therefore, in

%
cases of grant of bail, it is required to take into consideration various factors namely:- i) The nature of the offence ii) The heinousness of the crime iii) The punishment involved iv) Role of the accused 9.

The Court is also required to examine if there is a prima facie case made out against the accused or if there is a reasonable doubt created in the mind of the Court for granting bail to the accused. Therefore, in addition of the aforesaid conditions, a Court must be mindful of the purposes, objects, and reasons of the POCSO Act supplemental with the basic settled position enshrined in Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 439 of CrPC as held by the Supreme Court in various decisions.

10.

In the case in hand, this court is of firm view that the petitioner is an accused of a serious crime that might have shaken the victim's consciousness and also to keep in mind the victim's age, who is minor and whose life is in jeopardy.

Even though as a discretionary remedy, the grant of bail must be exercised with judicious mindhaving due regard to the particular circumstances of each case. There cannot be any all-inclusive guidelines established for the evaluation of a bail request. However, it can be noted that; (a) The type of charges, the seriousness of the punishment, whether a conviction is required, and the quality of the evidence supporting the accusations are all considerations for the court when deciding whether to issue bail;

(b) .When deciding whether to grant bail, the court should take into account realistic fears that the witnesses may be coerced or that the complainant may be in danger.


(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought to be always a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge (d) The prosecution's frivolity should always be taken into account; only the element of genuineness should be taken into account when determining whether to grant bail. If there is any reason to believe that the prosecution is not acting honestly, the accused is entitled to an order of bail in the normal course of events. 12.

This court would also profitably refer to a decision of Apex Court in "Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan@Pappu Yadav and another" (2004) 7 SCC 528 where the parameters to be taken into consideration for grant of bail by the Courts has been explained in the following words: "11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious of-fence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind.

It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circum- stances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

 The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction ano the nature of supporting evidence.  Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

 Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598:


2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Pu-ran v. Rambilas [2001) 6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] .)"

13.

In view of the discussions and observations made hereinabove and in light of fact that allegations against the accused are serious in nature wherein Section 10 of the POCSO ACT, 2012 is involved which stipulates for rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to imprisonment for life and in addition the act committed by the accused person is against the morality and society at large, this court is not inclined to interfere. 11.

Hence, the petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. &!   #'