SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gulshan vs State Of Haryana on 22 November, 2019

210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-45350 of 2019.
Decided on:- November 22, 2019.

Gulshan.
………Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana.
………Respondent.

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

*****

Present:- Mr. Ankur Lal, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, A.A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate
for the complainant.

HARI PAL VERMA, J. (Oral)

This is the second petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the

petitioner for grant of regular bail in FIR No.459 dated 21.06.2019 under

Section 376 IPC registered at Police Station Mujesar, District Faridabad.

The aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of prosecutrix

aged about 21 years, who has completed her B.Com from K.L. Mehta

College. As per the FIR, the prosecutrix knew the petitioner for about one

year as they met at some birthday party of some common friend. Thereafter,

they become friends through facebook and used to talk daily on phone.

Number of times, the prosecutrix along with her sister Kaajal had gone for

movie with the petitioner. On 09.05.2019, it was the birthday of the petitioner,

but as the prosecutrix were to appear in B.Com. (Part III) examination, the

same could not be celebrated on 09.05.2019. Thereafter, on 16.05.2019, the

petitioner in order to celebrate his birthday party had taken the prosecutrix to

1 of 4
09-12-2019 01:14:33 :::
CRM-M-45350 of 2019 -2-

Hotel Oyo, which is situated at a little distance from her house. They reached

the hotel at about 02.00 A.M. in the night, where the petitioner and the

prosecutrix celebrated the birthday party and cut the cake. During this

meeting, the petitioner committed wrong act with her against her consent and

had asked the prosecutrix not to disclose the same to anybody. The

prosecutrix has come to know that the petitioner was eyeing on her sister

Kaajal as well and had developed friendship with her. She had taken her sister

Kaajal into confidence and Kaajal disclosed everything to her. Thereafter, the

prosecutrix share this fact to her parents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the case in

hand, the petitioner is in custody since 12.09.2019. The alleged incident had

taken place on 16.05.2019, but the FIR was registered on 21.06.2019. The

petitioner and the prosecutrix were known to each other and this fact can be

substantiated with the photograph so attached with the petition. He submits

that the relations between the petitioner and prosecutrix, if any, were

absolutely consensual. There is no medical evidence so as to implicate the

petitioner in the case. The conclusion of trial will take long time as only 4

witnesses have been examined in the case so far as against the total 15

witnesses cited by the prosecution.

Mr. Sanghi, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that

the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious. The prosecutrix has

been examined in the case and she has supported the case of the prosecution.

The petitioner has an evil eye even on the younger sister of the prosecutrix for

which a separate FIR No.125 dated 19.07.2019 under Sections 354-A(1) (iii),

354-D and 506 SectionIPC registered at Police Station Women, NIT Faridabad. He

2 of 4
09-12-2019 01:14:33 :::
CRM-M-45350 of 2019 -3-

has referred to some WhatsApp messages exchanged between the petitioner

and prosecutrix showing therein that he is indulging in cricket Satta.

He further states that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he

may influence the prosecution witnesses and it would affect the victim in

other FIR i.e. FIR No.125 dated 19.07.2019. The intention of the petitioner

from the very beginning is to cheat the prosecutrix and, rather, he has started

having an evil eye on her younger sister.

Learned State counsel has more or less adopted the same

arguments as put forward by learned counsel for the complainant. However,

she submits that once the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution case and

the allegations against the petitioner are serious, the petitioner is not entitled

to bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is in custody since 12.09.2019. The alleged

incident had taken place on 16.05.2019 when the prosecutrix was taken to a

hotel, where the rape was allegedly committed upon her. However, the matter

was reported to the police on 21.06.2019. The copy of medical examination

report attached with the petition does not specifically spell out that the sexual

intercourse was committed by the petitioner. The photographs (Annexure P-2)

show close intimacy of the petitioner with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix is

aged about 21 years, whereas the petitioner is 19 years of age. In this manner,

as compared to the petitioner, she has attained more majority.

Considering the fact that the prosecutrix has been examined in

the case, there is no possibility to influence her in any manner. This Court has

been apprised by learned counsel for the petitioner that as against total 15

3 of 4
09-12-2019 01:14:33 :::
CRM-M-45350 of 2019 -4-

witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 4 witnesses have been examined in

the case. Therefore, when conclusion of trial is likely to take a long time, this

Court finds that the petitioner deserves to be admitted on bail.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is

ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety

bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner influences

the remaining prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly, the

prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.

The observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an

expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide

the case without being influenced with these observations in any manner.

(HARI PAL VERMA)
November 22, 2019 JUDGE
Yag Dutt

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes

Whether Reportable: No

4 of 4
09-12-2019 01:14:33 :::

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