Himachal Pradesh High Court: Anoop Chitkara J. dismissed the petition on the observations made hereunder.
The facts of the case are such that the victim was waiting for the bus at the bus stand when the accused who is petitioner in the instant case, who was her friend, reached in his pickup Jeep and offered to drop her home. The victim boarded the vehicle, but the accused took a detour on the way manipulating the victim that he would take a U-turn ahead and drop her at her home. However, instead of allowing her to alight, he brought the vehicle to an isolated place and then after intimidation established coitus, despite her protests. The FIR was registered and the petition was arrested. The petitioner by way of this petition before this Court is seeking regular bail.
The Court observed that statement made under Section 164 CrPC that she had said NO for sex to the accused, and the accused told her not to cry; otherwise, he would force himself upon her. In such circumstances of threat and coercion in a secluded area, the victim was forced to cooperate with the accused, which explains the absence of physical injuries on her body, and the presence of semen, indicating unprotected.
The Court further observed that when the curriculum does not include the proper sex education, the children raised by such societies fail the women time and again. NO MEANS NO- The simplest of sentences have become the most difficult for some men to understand. No does not mean yes, it does not mean that the girl is shy, it does not mean that the girl is asking a man to convince her, it does not mean that he has to keep pursuing her. The word NO doesn’t need any further explanation or justification. It ends there, and the man has to stop. In the present case it is clear that, the victim said no to the accused when he started touching her, but he continued. It nowhere implies consent, or zeal and desire to explore and feel each other in romantic love.
The Court held
“the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail. The petition is dismissed with liberty to file a new bail application in case of changed circumstance”.
[Suresh Kumar v. State of HP, 2021 SCC OnLine HP 4434, decided on 05-05-2021]
Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this report together
Counsel for the petitioner: Ms. Ritika Jassal and Mr. Aditya Thakur
Counsel for the respondent: Mr. Nand Lal Thakur
