IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
Date of decision:- 12.10.2018
Jitender @ Bholu
State of Haryana
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
Present: Mr.S.S. Kharb, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.
H.S. MADAAN, J. (Oral)
This petition has been filed for the grant of regular bail to the
petitioner – Jitender @ Bholu, an accused in FIR No.148 dated 9.3.2018,
under Sections 354 IPC and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, registered at Police
Station Samalkha, District Panipat.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the prosecution
story are that the FIR in question was lodged by complainant Dharambir
son of Kundan, resident of village Atta, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat,
who in the written complaint submitted by him to Incharge, Police Post
Samalkha submitted that his daughter (name withheld to protect her
identity in view of Section 228-A IPC and as per the directions given by
1 of 4
14-10-2018 03:39:41 :::
the Hon’ble Apex Court Court in case titled State of Karnataka Vs.
Puttaraja, 2004(1) RCR(Cri.) Supreme Court, 113 (SC) and referred to as
the prosecutrix) aged about 17 years had gone to Government School,
Bhapra for 12th class examination on 9.3.2018; that accused Jitender @
Bholu son of Ramesh, resident of village Mahra, District Sonipat, who is
devar (brother-in-law) of elder daughter of the complainant entered into
the class room, where the prosecutrix was sitting for examination and
misbehaved with her giving her beatings trying to kidnap her; that the
prosecutrix was rescued by students and staff present there; that Jitender
@ Bholu had come in a Ecco vehicle accompanied by 4-5 persons having
weapons. He sought taking of action against them.
On the basis of such complaint, formal FIR was registered.
The investigation in the case started. The statement of the prosecutrix was
recorded by the police. Thereafter, her statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. was also got recorded from SDJM, Samalkha. Accused was
arrested in this case on 10.3.2018. He by making disclosure statement got
recovered ECCO vehicle, which was taken into possession. Subsequently,
the complainant and the prosecutrix got recorded supplementary statement
stating that only Jitender @ Bholu was present there and 4-5 persons
were not there and they were not having arms. On completion of
investigation, challan was prepared and filed in the Court adding offence
under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, whereas Section 12 thereof was
After presentation of the challan, charge against the accused
has been framed and the trial is going on. The petitioner/accused had
moved an application for regular bail in Court of Sessions at Panipat but
2 of 4
14-10-2018 03:39:42 :::
was unsuccessful as the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.5.2018
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, as such, he has
approached this Court for grant of the similar relief.
Notice of the petition was given to the State and State counsel
has put in appearance.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
State counsel besides going through the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner and the prosecutrix were known to each other for last two years.
They both liked each other and wanted to marry but the complainant was
not ready for that. Both of them had taken poison about 1 ½ years earlier
for that reason but had survived and both the families had agreed to marry
them after the prosecutrix attained the age of 18 years, which she has now
completed on 23.4.2018; that as a matter of fact, no such incident had
taken place; that the petitioner had taken the prosecutrix to the
examination centre, to which the complainant objected and then lodged
Though initially the complainant had stated that the accused
accompanied by 4-5 armed persons had come and misbehaved with the
prosecutrix while she was sitting in the examination hall and trying to
kidnap her but later on by making the supplementary statements the
factum of accused being accompanied by 4-5 armed persons has been
denied. The petitioner was arrested on 10.3.2018. The trial is at
preliminary stage and its conclusion is likely to take some time. The
petitioner on one side and the prosecutrix and her father – the complainant
3 of 4
14-10-2018 03:39:42 :::
on other side are related to each other. Further, detention of the
petitioner/accused shall not serve any purpose. Therefore, it shall be in the
fitness of things, if regular bail is granted to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner be
admitted to bail during the pendency of the trial, subject to his furnishing
bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, subject to the following conditions:
(i) he shall appear in the Court on each and every date of
(ii)he shall not give any threat or intimidation to the
prosecution witnesses; and
(iii)he shall not leave India without prior permission of the
Court and shall surrender his passport, if he has got
one, otherwise to furnish affidavit in that regard.
In addition to that the trial Court may impose any term and
condition found suitable to ensure that the petitioner does not abscond and
interfere in the trial.
In case the petitioner violates any term and condition on
which the bail has been granted to him, the prosecution would be entitled
to apply for cancellation of bail.
12.10.2018 (H.S. MADAAN)
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
14-10-2018 03:39:42 :::