IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
Date of decision : 16.11.2017
State of Haryana
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Mahima Yashpal, AAG, Haryana,
assisted by ASI Brijpal.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been preferred under Section 439
Cr.P.C. seeking bail in FIR No.381 dated 25.07.2017, registered under
Sections 376 (added subsequently), 354 (deleted subsequently), 377, 406,
498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police
Station Rai, Sonipat.
Contends that the petitioner is the brother-in-law (devar) of the
complainant, who has roped in the whole family. There is a delay of more
than five months in lodging the FIR. She has also levelled allegations
attracting Section 377 IPC against her husband, however, the same is not
supported by the medical evidence.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the
instant petition. On instructions, learned State counsel submits that the
petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and statement of the
prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and has been ascribed specific role.
She further states that the challan stands presented and the matter is now
fixed for framing of charge.
1 of 2
17-11-2017 05:36:16 :::
The petitioner is in custody since 05.09.2017. The charges are
yet to be framed, therefore, it can safely be inferred that the conclusion of
trial may take time.
In view of the above, without adverting to the merits of the
instant case, this petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail
during the pendency of the trial, on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds,
to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty
However, anything noticed hereinabove shall not be construed
as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
16.11.2017 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
2 of 2
17-11-2017 05:36:17 :::