Man Accused Of Committing Unnatural Act With Cow Gets Bail: Himachal Pradesh High Court Says 'No Criminal History Depicting Pervert Mind'

While granting him bail, the Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara observed that the accused is a married man, with his wife residing with him and that there was no allegation of any criminal history including sexual offence depicting pervert mind.

Background

The allegations against the petitioner (Jai Ram) are that on 7th August, 2020, complainant Ranjit Singh informed Police Post Sihunta, that the petitioner, a mason, is his neighbour and when in the morning, he went towards his cowshed he noticed that the petitioner (Accused) was involved in an unnatural act with his cow.

On this, he confronted the petitioner but he ran away from the spot. Based on this information, the police registered the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner. The Accused was booked under Section 377 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and was arrested on 7th August, 2020.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Judge. However, vide order dated 5.9.2020 the Sessions Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba, HP, dismissed his petition.

Court's observations

Relying on the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, the Court said that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail

In this context, the Court observed,

"Although the allegations against the petitioner are grave but this Court cannot lose the sight of the fact that the petitioner was not employed as a servant by the complainant and thus his access to the cowshed could not have been easily noticed in the morning and secondly that he is a married man with his wife residing with him.

Further, the Court remarked,

"There is no allegation of any criminal history including sexual offence depicting pervert mind. These factors, without extending them further, make out a case for bail."

Further, the Court said that the analysis of entire evidence does not justify further incarceration of the accused, nor is going to achieve any significant purpose.