SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Virender @ Sunder vs State Of Haryana on 8 March, 2017

CRM No.M-5707 of 2017(OM) [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No.M- 5707 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: March 8 , 2017.

Virender @ Sunder …… PETITIONER (s)

Versus

State of Haryana …… RESPONDENT (s)

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.
*****
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?
*****

LISA GILL, J.

The petitioner prays for bail pending trial in FIR No.76 dated

19.10.2016 under Sections 120B/323/376/376(2)(N)/376D/377/506 IPC

registered at Police Station Women Hisar, District Hisar. Offence punishable

under Section 377 IPC has been deleted and offences punishable under

Sections 3/4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act have been added.

It is contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in

1 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2017 04:57:11 :::
CRM No.M-5707 of 2017(OM) [2]

this case with ulterior motives. He was not named at the first instance in the

FIR in which a number of other persons have also been named. In a

supplementary statement of the prosecutrix recorded on 21.10.2016, she

named the present petitioner while stating that after inquiring at her own level,

she discovered the name of the petitioner, who is alleged to be the owner of

Hotel Bagwan in the FIR. He is alleged to have violated the prosecutrix one

and half years prior to the lodging of the FIR. Learned senior counsel for the

petitioner vehemently argues that the petitioner has been implicated being

well-placed, at the behest of the maternal uncle (Mama) of the prosecutrix who

is a habitual offender. No test identification parade was conducted in which

the petitioner was identified by the prosecutrix. The petitioner is the owner of

Hotel Plaza and not Hotel Bagwan. It is submitted that there is no explanation

as to why the matter was not reported for one and a half years. Furthermore,

the Challan/final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in this case has already been

presented. The petitioner has been in custody since 22.10.2016. Nothing is to

be recovered from him. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the

petitioner in custody. Therefore, this petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Kamla,

Police Station Women, Hisar, verifies that the petitioner is the owner of Hotel

Plaza and not Hotel Bagwan. It is not denied that apart from the

supplementary statement of the prosecutrix recorded on 21.10.2016, there is

no other evidence available qua the present petitioner. The other Hotel owners

mentioned in the FIR have not been proceeded against. It is affirmed that the

2 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2017 04:57:12 :::
CRM No.M-5707 of 2017(OM) [3]

maternal uncle of the prosecutrix is involved in a number of criminal cases,

though it is submitted that this fact would have no bearing on the present case.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the file.

A perusal of the FIR reveals that allegations have been raised by

the prosecutrix against a number of persons including Hotel owners in the city

of Hisar. The petitioner has not been named therein. Mention is made of

owner of Hotel Bagwan. In the supplementary statement recorded on

21.10.2016, the prosecutrix has stated that she alongwith her maternal uncle

had come to participate in the investigation. After having inquired at her own

level she found the name of the owner of Hotel Bagwan to be Varinder son of

Kitab Singh i.e., the present petitioner. Translation of supplementary

statement (Annexure P2) reads as under:-

“Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and in
pursuance to First Information Report, told that today I alongwith
you in the present case, I and my maternal uncle (mama) Naresh
Khurana have remained joined in investigation. You as per my
demarcation have prepared the spot site plan of Bagwa Hotel,
Delhi Road bye pass, Hisar and inspected the spot. After that in
Rishik Hotel, Hisar as per my demarcation inspected the spot.

After that spot inspection of Samrat Hotel and General Hospital,
Hisar was done as per my asking and now you have taken me near
Kartik Hotel. I, after my complete satisfaction have told you that I
never visited Kartik Hotel nor any person committed rape with me
here. I had got written the name of Kartik Hotel under
misunderstanding. Now, I have also inquired at my own level that
about 1 ½ years back the owner of Bagwa Hotel who had

3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2017 04:57:12 :::
CRM No.M-5707 of 2017(OM) [4]

committed rape upon me, his name is Varinder s/o Sh. Kitab
Singh, caste Jat, r/o Saatroad, Khaas, who is now residing in
Sector-13, Hisar and as per the asking of Meera w/o Narender @
Rinku, caste Punjabi and Shobha residents of Sheetla Mata
Mandir Street, Padav Chowk, Hisar, above Varinder forcibly
committed rape upon me and on telling anyone had threatened to
kill me. Rest of the persons who had forcibly committed rape
upon me I will also tell their names to you after inquiring on my
own level.”

It is not denied that there is no other evidence available on record

against the present petitioner except the abovesaid supplementary statement of

the victim. Learned counsel for the State has verified that the petitioner is not

the owner of Hotel Bagwan. Trial of the case is likely to take long. It is not

disputed that the charges have been framed against the present petitioner on

20.01.2017. There are twenty (20) prosecution witnesses to be examined.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is

likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing

true facts in the Court, if released on bail. The petitioner is not involved in

any other criminal case. Further incarceration of the petitioner is not called for

in the present factual matrix.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case but

without commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,

this petition filed by Virender @ Sunder is allowed. The petitioner shall be

released on bail pending trial subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds and

surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

4 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2017 04:57:12 :::
CRM No.M-5707 of 2017(OM) [5]

It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall

not be construed to be a reflection on merits of the case. The same are

confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition and shall have no

bearing on the trial.

( LISA GILL )
March 8 , 2017. JUDGE
'om'

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

5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2017 04:57:12 :::

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