218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Date of Decision : 21.08.2017
Ashish @ Mohit …….Petitioner
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 :::
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
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 :::
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.
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
27-08-2017 00:36:44 :::