SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pardeep vs State Of Haryana on 17 July, 2018

CRM-M-6115-2018 -1-


Date of decision:-17.7.2018



State of Haryana


Present: Mr.Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr.Gaurav Bansal, AAG, Haryana.



This petition for regular bail has been filed by Pardeep – an

accused in FIR No.110 dated 4.3.2017, under Sections 346, 376(1)(i), 406

IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), registered at Police Station City,


The FIR in this case was registered on the basis of an

application submitted by complainant – Rekhi wife of Rajpal of Jogi

community, resident of Sewa Nagar, Bhiwani to the police on 4.3.2017

submitting therein that her eldest daughter aged about 14 years (daughter

name not being mentioned to conceal her identity and referred to as ‘the

1 of 3
22-07-2018 13:26:58 :::
CRM-M-6115-2018 -2-

victim’) had left home in the morning of that day without informing

anybody; that despite being searched, she could not be located. On the

basis of that application, formal FIR for the offence under Section 346

IPC was registered. The matter was investigated. On 10.3.2017, when the

Investigating Officer was present near bus-stand Rohtak, the victim was

found therefrom. Her statement was recorded wherein she stated that she

had been sexually ravished by one Auto driver Pardeep at Prince Hotel,

Rohtak by use of force. Therefore, offence under Section 376 IPC and

Section 4 of the Act were added, whereas offence under Section 346 IPC

was deleted. Accused Pardeep was arrested in this case on 26.3.2017.

During the course of investigation, offence under Section 406 IPC was

also added. After completion of investigation and other formalities,

challan was prepared and filed in the Court. The petitioner had filed an

application for regular bail in the Court of Sessions, which was declined

by Additional Sessions Judge (Exclusive Court), Bhiwani vide order dated

18.1.2018, as such, he has approached this Court with the same request.

Notice of the petition was given to respondent – State and

counsel representing the State has put in appearance.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going

through the record.

The allegations against the petitioner are very grave and

serious of committing rape upon a minor girl. Such type of persons having

lust for sex are danger to innocent young girls and women. They need to

be dealt with sternly. No leniency can be shown to them lest they are able

to sexually assault more innocent young girls. There are reasonable

2 of 3
22-07-2018 13:26:59 :::
CRM-M-6115-2018 -3-

chances of the petitioner tampering with the prosecution evidence and

absconding, if granted bail.

Therefore, finding no merit in the petition, the same stands


17.7.2018 (H.S.MADAAN)

Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
22-07-2018 13:26:59 :::

Leave a Reply

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

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