SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Amit vs State Of Haryana on 24 January, 2020

234.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-2526-2020
Date of decision: 24.01.2020

AMIT … Petitioner

versus

STATE OF HARYANA …. Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA
—-

Present: Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana
—-

HARI PAL VERMA, J.(Oral)

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is

for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.682 dated

28.12.2017 registered under Sections 323, 498A, 506, 376 of IPC at Police

Station Ganaur, District Sonepat.

The aforesaid FIR was registered at the behest of complainant

whose marriage was solemnized with Ravi on 22.06.2014. The petitioner is

the husband of elder sister of the complainant. The allegation against the

petitioner is that he entered the room of the complainant and committed rape

upon her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that apart from the

fact that the petitioner is in custody since 19.09.2019, he has been falsely

implicated in the case. He was implicated for the reason that he is the real

1 of 3
25-01-2020 03:44:01 :::
CRM-M-2526-2020 -2-

brother of the husband of the complainant. The alleged occurrence is dated

10.09.2016, whereas the present FIR has been registered on 28.12.2017 i.e.

after more than 1 year and 3 months. The complainant has been examined

and no such material has been produced before the trial Court as regard the

offence so committed.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the custody. She submits

that challan in the case was presented on 10.10.2019 and charges were

framed on 09.01.2020.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Custody of the petitioner is not in dispute. Though in the FIR,

the complainant has made allegations that the petitioner has committed rape

on her, but on the same date when the alleged incident has taken place, she

was medico legally examined where she has not made any such allegation.

In this manner, there being improvement in her version, this Court finds that

strict culpability of the petitioner is required to be established during trial.

The trial in the case is likely to take long time.

Taking into consideration the custody of the petitioner and the

fact that trial will take sufficient long time, this Court deems it appropriate to

admit the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner

is admitted on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds

to the satisfaction of trial Court.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat

and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or

indirectly.

2 of 3
25-01-2020 03:44:01 :::
CRM-M-2526-2020 -3-

The observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an

expression on the merits of the case and the trial court shall decide the case

on the basis of available material.

(HARI PAL VERMA)
JUDGE
24.01.2020
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No

3 of 3
25-01-2020 03:44:01 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation