Virender Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
In the High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Cr.M.P. (M) 1070/2011
Before Justice Kuldip Singh
Decided on December 29, 2011

Relevancy: Bail in a case involving rape and circulation of the victim’s naked pictures

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 376, 506, 294)
• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66, 67A)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 439)
• The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 (Section 6)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• It has been stated that the petitioner used to tease her when the prosecutrix went to school. After school, she was waiting for the bus outside the school gate, the petitioner came there on a motorcycle. He extended threats to the prosecutrix and out of fear, the prosecutrix accompanied the petitioner on a motorcycle and went to Sangam restaurant.
• She was offered a cold drink, but immediately thereafter, she became unconscious.
• On regaining consciousness, she found herself naked. The petitioner asked her to keep quiet otherwise he would kill her. The prosecutrix went to her house and on account of fear did not tell the incident to her mother.
• The petitioner started blackmailing the prosecutrix by saying that he had taken her naked photographs and asked her sexual favour. Otherwise, he would send her photographs through SMS in the area.
• The prosecutrix due to fear did not disclose the incident to anyone and petitioner committed sexual intercourse with her several times under threats. On 9.5.2011, her cousin told that somebody had released her nude picture through SMS.
• The prosecutrix disclosed the entire story to her mother, who contacted Pradhan. They advised her to report the matter to the police.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

The petitioner’s counsel:

• The investigating agency has concocted a false story against the petitioner. In the FIR itself, there is no mention of date or place of the alleged incident. The prosecution case is false and highly improbable. The prosecutrix was above 16 years of age at the time of occurrence.

The respondent’s counsels:

• The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The prosecutrix’s date of birth is July 10, 1993; but it is a case where the petitioner has allegedly committed sexual intercourse against her wish and by extending threats to her.
• The petitioner took naked photographs of the prosecutrix and sent those photographs through SMS in the area. The prosecutrix could not report the matter earlier out of fear.

Opinion of the Bench

• The prosecutrix in the FIR has briefly narrated the occurrence. The entire history is not required to be given in an FIR. The prosecution will be required to prove the case during the trial.

Final Decision

• The petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage. There is no merit in this petition and hence, it is dismissed.

This case summary has been prepared by Mansi Vats, an undergraduate student at UPES, Dehradun, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in June/July 2020.