SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ashish Alias Mohit vs State Of Haryana on 21 August, 2017

218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-29702-2017
Date of Decision : 21.08.2017

Ashish @ Mohit …….Petitioner
versus

State of Haryana ….Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.

LISA GILL, JUDGE (ORAL)

Petitioner prays for the concession of bail pending trial in FIR

No.144 dated 17.06.2017 under Sections 354, 452, 506, 34 IPC and Section

12 of POCSO Act (Sections 363/511 IPC added later on), registered at

Police Station Baroda, District Sonepat.

It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in

this case primarily due to a dispute between parents of the complainant. It is

submitted that at the outset, an application (Annexure P-1) was submitted by

the complainant’s father wherein no such allegations are raised which would

attract rigours of the offences for which the petitioner is sought to be tried.

The occurrence in question is alleged to have taken place on the intervening

night of 6th and 7th June, 2017. Thereafter, the complainant/victim recorded

her statement before the police on 19.06.2017 on the basis of which the

above said FIR was registered. Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was

recorded on 19.06.2017 in consonance with the events as narrated in the

1 of 3
27-08-2017 00:36:43 :::
CRM-M-29702-2017 -2-

FIR. However, subsequently, on 28.07.2017, supplementary statement of

the complainant/victim (Annexure P-4) was recorded wherein allegations

attracting the provisions of Section 354 IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act

were raised for the first time. It is submitted that a perusal of the initial

application by the complainant’s father (Annexure P-1) reveals that there is a

matrimonial dispute between the complainant’s parents. In this application,

it is merely mentioned that the petitioner came in the courtyard of the

applicant and his daughter (victim) saw him and shouted, upon which they

all woke up. The petitioner along with another ran away. The complainant’s

wife is alleged to be in adulterous relationship with the present petitioner.

An apprehension was expressed that the petitioner was sent by the

complainant’s wife.

The victim in her statement dated 17.06.2017 on the basis of

which the FIR was registered revealed that the petitioner tried to take her

away by putting his hand on her mouth, but on her raising alarm, family

members woke up and the petitioner ran away. She also refers to illicit

relations of the petitioner with her mother and her father’s effort to stop

them. No allegations regarding commission of offences under Section 354

IPC or Section 12 of POCSO Act were raised. Such allegations were not

raised even in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.c. It is thus prayed that

this petition be allowed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI

Dhanraj, affirms and verifies that final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has

2 of 3
27-08-2017 00:36:44 :::
CRM-M-29702-2017 -3-

since been presented. The sequence of events, as above, is not disputed by

the learned State counsel. It is further verified that the petitioner, who is

about 19 years old, is not involved in any other case.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioner

is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from

deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above but

without commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, this petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The petitioner be

released on bail pending trial subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds

and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove

shall be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are

solely confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition.

(LISA GILL)
JUDGE
21.08.2017
Neha

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
27-08-2017 00:36:44 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh