Libertatem Magazine

Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Accused Charged for Sexual Harassment and Caste Discrimination

Contents of this Page

In the present case, the petitioners filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. They were in custody for allegedly committing offences against the complainants under sections of IPC and ST/SC Act.

The complainants were also accused under different sections of the said Acts. After looking into the facts of the case, the Court considered it to be fit for bail. As a result, the petition was allowed. 

Brief Facts of the Case

The case deals with two petitioners who filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The police arrested the petitioners after the respondents filed an FIR against them.

As per the FIR, the petitioners were charged for the offences of wrongful restraint under Section 341 and for causing voluntary hurt to the complainant under Section 323. The respondent had further accused them under Section 506 for the offence of Criminal Intimidation. Also, the petitioners allegedly committed provocation through insults which is an offence under Section 504 and threats respectively.

Moreover, the petitioners were also charged under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The sections include 3(1)(X) for insulting the caste, 3(1) (XIV) for restricting access to public places and 3(1)(XV) for forcing to leave the place it residence. The petitioners also filed an FIR against the complainant and his brother-in-law in another case.

According to the petitioner, the respondent used to abuse and harass people under the influence of alcohol. The petitioner has accused the brother-in-law of beating the petitioner, tearing her clothes and molesting her. 

Further, the petitioner’s mother and the petitioner herself received threats to withdraw the case. Thus, the petitioners accused the complainant under several sections of IPC. The charges included Section 354-A for sexual Harassment, 323 for causing hurt and 504 for insulting and provoking in another case.

Petitioner’s Argument

The petitioners claimed that they are innocent. They stated that their custody is not serving any purpose. They also stated that the investigation is almost complete. Further, they claimed that there was nothing left for recovery. Thus, the Court should release them on bail. Moreover, they assured to co-operate with the investigation after their release.

Respondent’s Argument

The respondent expressed that the petitioners are people of power and influence. They would try to use their status to manipulate the case. In light of the same, the Court should not grant bail.

Court’s Observation

The Court observed that the custody of the petitioners is not necessary. It does not fulfil any beneficial objective. Further, the Court deemed the case to be fit for bail.

Court’s Judgment

Based on the aforesaid statements and facts, the Court granted bail to the petitioners. The Court ordered the petitioners to co-operate with the investigation. Further, the Court warned them not to misuse their liberty and status. The Court ordered the petitioner to keep the Court informed about their whereabouts. Moreover, the bail bond was set at Rs.30,000 for each petitioner. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author