SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pardeep Kumar @ Deepa vs State Of Punjab on 15 October, 2018


222 CRM-M-42625-2018 (OM)
Date of Decision : 15.10.2018

Pardeep Kumar @ Deepa

State of Punjab



Present: Mr. C.S.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab.


In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for regular bail under

the provision of Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.273 dated 06.11.2016,

under Section 377 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act (Added later on )

registered at Police Station Salem Tabri District Ludhiana.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is in

custody since November, 2016. In the trial proceedings 6 witnesses have

been examined out of 9 witnesses. It would take some more time to

complete the trial proceedings and he is not involved in any other case.

Therefore, he is entitled for regular bail.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel on instructions of ASI Jasmer

Singh vehemently contended that having regard to the seriousness of the

charge and the observation made by the Sessions court in the order dated

04.01.2017 while rejecting the petitioner’s bail application, it is evident

from the report of Doctor that there is evidence of intercourse and child has

been abused sexually and so also offence relating to Section 4 of the

Prevention of Children from Sexual offences added later on.

1 of 2
11-11-2018 04:49:55 :::
CRM-M-42625-2018 -2-

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. No doubt, petitioner is in custody since November, 2016 at the

same time seriousness of the charge is required to be taken into

consideration. Petitioner not only abused the minor child of 9 years

sexually but also threatened him. What Section 377 IPC provides:-

” Unnatural offences: Whoever voluntarily has carnal
intercourse against the order of nature with any man,
woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment
for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.

Further keep on threatening the victim to kill him if he disclose the alleged

crime to anyone. In other words, petitioner was blackmailing while

committing offence under Section 377 IPC read with Section 4 of POCSO

Act. That apart, amongst 9 witnesses, 6 witnesses have been examined and

only 3 more witnesses are required to be examined. Therefore, petitioner has

not made out a case for bail. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.

However, keeping in view the custody of petitioner since November, 2016,

trial court is directed to expedite the matter in concluding the trial at the


15.10.2018 ( P.B. BAJANTHRI )
pooja saini JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

Whether reportable? Yes/No

2 of 2
11-11-2018 04:49:56 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 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