IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
222 CRM-M-42625-2018 (OM)
Date of Decision : 15.10.2018
Pardeep Kumar @ Deepa
State of Punjab
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI
Present: Mr. C.S.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab.
P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.(ORAL)
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 :::
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 :::