SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Satnam Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 March, 2017

CRM-M No.9615 of 2017 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No. 9615 of 2017(OM)

Date of decision: 28.3.2017

Satnam Singh ….Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab …..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

Present: Mr. Bikramjit Aurora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankur Jain, AAG, Punjab.

REKHA MITTAL, J.

The petitioner prays for grant of regular bail in FIR No.116

dated 18.08.2015 registered with Police Station Gharinda, District

Amritsar Rural for offence punishable under Sections 406, 498-A, 376,

506, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short

‘IPC‘).

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is

elder brother of Pargat Singh with whom the complainant Sehajpreet Kaur

performed marriage on 21.01.2014. Pargat Singh is residing in a foreign

country for the past more than 14 years and after a short stay in India for

the purpose of marriage, he went back to resume his work. The petitioner

has a family comprising his wife and two minor children and he has been

residing separately before marriage of Pargat Singh with Sehajpreet Kaur.

It is argued with vehemence that as the complainant was found having

illicit relations with a boy of her village and Gurpreet Singh, son of her

sister-in-law and an objection in this regard was raised by the family,

complainant raised false allegations against her father-in-law qua offence

1 of 3
08-04-2017 09:15:56 :::
CRM-M No.9615 of 2017 (OM) 2

under Section 354 IPC and attribution of sexual assault/rape against the

petitioner. In the alternative, it is argued that if the complainant was being

taken to Delhi by the petitioner against her wish, there was no reason for

her to keep silence when they allegedly travelled together from Amritsar to

Delhi in May 2015 via train. In addition, it is argued that the FIR has been

lodged almost after three months of the alleged occurrence, sufficient to

create doubt in the story propounded by the complainant. The last

submission made by counsel is that the petitioner is in custody since

01.04.2016 and conclusion of trial is likely to take its own time.

Counsel for the State has opposed prayer for bail with the

submission that there are grave and serious allegations against the

petitioner committing rape upon the complainant. The victim later

committed suicide and another FIR has been registered against the

petitioner and others for offence under Section 304-B IPC.

In response, counsel has submitted that the petitioner has

already been released on bail with regard to offence under Section 304-B

IPC.

The present FIR has been lodged by the complainant against

several members of her in-laws’ family when she has attributed serious

allegations against the petitioner for committing rape. There is no

explanation in the FIR for delay of about three months in lodging the FIR.

The petitioner is in custody for the last about one year. Conclusion of the

trial is likely to take some more time. The victim of the crime is no more

available for recording her statement, therefore, there is no possibility of

the petitioner tampering with her evidence in case released on bail.

2 of 3
08-04-2017 09:15:57 :::
CRM-M No.9615 of 2017 (OM) 3

Without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case,

the present petition stands disposed of with a direction that the petitioner

shall be released on bail subject to satisfaction of the trial Court in case

prosecution fails to conclude the evidence within a period of three months

from the next date fixed in the proceedings before the trial Court.

However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to benefit of bail in case delay

in conclusion of prosecution evidence would be attributable to the

petitioner himself. In case, the petitioner is released on bail, he shall abide

by the following conditions:

(i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of the
case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to
the Court;

(ii) he shall not leave India without previous permission of the
Court.

MARCH 28, 2017 (REKHA MITTAL)
‘D. Gulati’ JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : yes/no
Whether reportable : yes/no

3 of 3
08-04-2017 09:15:57 :::

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