SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vijay Alias Chunna Pandit vs State Of Haryana on 7 January, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No.M-54482 of 2019
Date of Decision: 07.01.2020

Vijay alias Chunna Pandit
…Petitioner (s)
Versus
State of Haryana
…Respondent(s)

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA

Present:- Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.
*****

HARI PAL VERMA, J. (Oral)

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for grant of regular bail to the

petitioner in case FIR No.117 dated 23.07.2019 under Sections 498A, 323,

406, 506, 376, 511 IPC read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police

Station Women Central, Faridabad.

The aforesaid FIR was registered at the behest of the

complainant, who is wife of co-accused Gaurav Rajawat. The marriage of

the complainant was solemnised with Gaurav Rajawat on 08.12.2017 and

after this marriage, the petitioner used to visit the house of in-laws of the

prosecutrix. On 17.03.2018, the petitioner entered in the room of the

prosecutrix and tried to hug her. However, when the complainant informed

1 of 3
12-01-2020 02:28:27 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M-54482 of 2019 -2-

about this incident to her mother-in-law, she did not react to it, giving an

impression that it had happened so with her (mother-in-law’s) consent. The

complainant reported this matter to her husband, but he also did not object

to it. The petitioner used to come to the room of the complainant every day

and tried to misbehave with her. He even instigated her in-laws against her.

On 28.06.2018 at about 11-00 P.M., the petitioner again entered into the

room of the complainant when her husband was sleeping in a room upside.

He caught the prosecutrix from behind and tried to press her breasts. The

prosecutrix pushed him and ran outside the room and informed her in-laws,

but in return they tried to beat her and the petitioner had also given beating

to her.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in fact the dispute is

between the complainant and her husband. The alleged incidents have

taken place on 17.03.2018 and 28.06.2018 whereas the FIR in question was

registered on 23.07.2019 i.e. after more than a year. The prosecutrix was

subjected to medical examination, but no such injury was reflected on her

person. He has further submitted that charge in the case has been framed,

but no witness has been examined in the case so far, though two

opportunities were afforded to the prosecution. The petitioner is in custody

since 30.08.2019.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Kallu Singh,

does not dispute the custody of the petitioner. However, she submits that

there are specific allegations against the petitioner, who tried to commit

rape upon the victim-complainant. Even if the petitioner is in custody since

2 of 3
12-01-2020 02:28:28 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M-54482 of 2019 -3-

30.08.2019, it is no ground to admit him on bail when there are specific

allegations like the present ones against him.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

In the background of the case, there is matrimonial dispute

between the complainant and her husband, who is co-accused in the case

and her mother-in-law is also an accused in the case. The petitioner is a

tenant in the house of the co-accused for a long time. Considering the fact

that the petitioner is in custody since 30.08.2019 and there is no medical

evidence to support the case of the prosecution coupled with the fact that

trial in the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court

deems it appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner

is admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing of his bail bonds/surety

bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court.

However, it is made clear that the observation made

hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the

case.

January 07, 2020 ( HARI PAL VERMA )
AK JUDGE

Whether speaking / reasoned? Yes / No

Whether reportable? Yes / No

3 of 3
12-01-2020 02:28:28 :::

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.

STUDY REPORTS

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