SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sita Ram vs State Of Haryana on 6 March, 2018

CRM No.M-48892 of 2017


Criminal Misc. No.M- 48892 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: March 06 , 2018.

Sita Ram …… PETITIONER (s)


State of Haryana …… RESPONDENT (s)


Present: Mr. Amardeep Sheoran, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Vijay Sangwan, Advocate
for the complainant.
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?


The petitioner prays for bail pending trial in FIR No.132 dated

08.08.2017 under Sections 376/342/506 IPC, registered at Police Station Satnali,

District Mahendergarh.

It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this

case. As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant, a married lady stated

that when she was going for taking fodder, the present petitioner came out of his

house, caught hold of her, dragged her inside his house and committed rape upon

1 of 3
11-03-2018 02:32:54 :::
CRM No.M-48892 of 2017

her. He thereafter threatened her not to reveal this incident to any one otherwise

he would kill her husband as well as her children. The matter was reported

immediately and action against the petitioner was prayed for.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that it is

highly improbable that the incident could have taken place during day time as

alleged. The petitioner’s parents, wife and children are living alongwith him in

the house. It is opposed to all logic that none would have heard the prosecutrix

and come to her rescue. Moreover, the complainant had earlier also filed a

complaint alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 354 IPC

against one Naresh Kumar. She had thereafter compromised the matter with him.

While referring to the testimony of the complainant before the learned trial court,

it is submitted that she has admitted the said complaint against Naresh Kumar,

her neighbour. The petitioner undertakes not to misuse the concession of bail, if

afforded to him. It is thus prayed that this petition be allowed.

Photocopies of the statements of the prosecutrix and her husband,

produced in Court today, are taken on record subject to just exceptions.

Learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant are unable

to deny that the complainant as well as her husband have since deposed before

the learned trial court. It is further not denied that there are no external injuries

on the person of the complainant/prosecutrix to corroborate her version of being

dragged by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Kuldip,

verifies that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. Trial in this

case is not likely to conclude in the near future. Testimony of the complainant

2 of 3
11-03-2018 02:32:55 :::
CRM No.M-48892 of 2017

and her husband has been recorded before the learned trial court. There are no

allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioner is likely to abscond or that he

is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts before the Court, if

released on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but without

commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits thereof, this petition is

allowed. The petitioner be released on bail pending trial subject to his furnishing

requisite bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly try

to contact the complainant-prosecutrix/any of her family members or witnesses

in this case. Any such infraction on the part of the petitioner may entail

cancellation of his bail.

It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall

be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are solely

confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition.

March 06 , 2018. JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
11-03-2018 02:32:55 :::

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