‘Why wasn’t 2021 abuse reported in earlier FIR?’: judge asks survivor while granting bail to Himachal MLA Hans Raj in Pocso case

‘Earlier FIR had no whisper of 2021 incident’

As per the FIR, the accused deceitfully took the girl with him to a rest house in Bhandal and sexually abused her. The MLA was subsequently booked under Section 69 (sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Pocso Act at the Women’s Police Station in Chamba.

The court stated, “…the matter of concern is that in the earlier FIR registered on August 9 in 2024, the victim has not even made a whisper/regarding any incident/occurrence pertaining to the year 2021 in the handwritten detailed complaint made by her… It is not explained by the prosecution or the victim as to why the said occurrence was not reported at the time of registration of earlier FIR.”

“Although the aforesaid observation and expression of the court is a matter of trial and no opinion on merits can be made at this stage when the court is dealing with the anticipatory bail application… prima facie the conduct of the victim appears to be suspicious/dubious,” the judge added.

“No date, month or year of alleged occurrence has been mentioned by the victim, however, she has alleged that she was below 17 years and was studying in class 11th at that time,” the court stated, adding, “In the reply filed by the victim today, she has narrated the year of said occurrence to be of 2021, i.e. around four years ago. Further, the victim alleged in the present FIR that in the month of February 2024, she was called by the bail applicant in Himachal Bhavan, Chandigarh, where he made physical relations with her on the pretext that he should marry her and settle her at Chandigarh.”

What the 2024 complaint mentioned

During the arguments, the case file of the earlier FIR was called for perusal. It was found that on August 9, 2024, when the victim was around 20 years of age, she had lodged a complaint against the MLA, leading to the registration of an FIR under sections 74 (assault or criminal force on woman to outrage modesty), 75 (sexual harassment), and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the BNS. However, during the investigation, she made a statement that she did not wish to pursue the complaint further, following which a cancellation report was filed.

The prosecution argued that the cancellation report has not yet been accepted by the court and is pending for objections. Therefore, the victim’s earlier statement of not pursuing the case cannot be accepted as true.

The court noted that whether the victim’s earlier statement was made under duress or otherwise is a matter of adjudication in the proceedings related to the cancellation report, and no opinion could be expressed on that aspect while deciding the present bail plea.

The court said, “Keeping in view the facts brought before the court and the conduct of the victim, at this stage, the liberty of the accused cannot be curtailed.”

Accordingly, the court ordered that in the event of arrest, the bail petitioner “shall be released on interim bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, subject to the following conditions including bail applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court, he shall join the investigation as and when directed by the investigating agency, he shall not contact the victim or her family members through WhatsApp, mobile phone, SMS, or any other means of communication or social media, he shall not indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or illegal, or which may prejudice the proceedings in the pending case.”

The case will be heard again on November 22.