SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Virkam @Bittu vs The State Of Haryana on 31 May, 2019



Date of decision:31.05.2019

VIRKAM @ BITTU … Petitioner


STATE OF HARYANA …. Respondent


Present: Mr. Madan Sandhu and Mr. Sandeep Kaushik, Advocates,
for the petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana.



Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is

for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.114 dated

13.03.2019 registered under Sections 328/Section354/Section376/Section506/Section120-B of IPC at

Police Station Rai, District Sonepat.

Counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid FIR was

registered on 13.03.2019 whereas the alleged incident attracting the offence

under Section 376 IPC took place on 10.03.2017, when the petitioner

allegedly abducted the victim, made her unconscious by sniffing intoxicant,

took her to a place and raped her. He also videographed and blackmailed

her. It has been further alleged that the petitioner made forcible sexual

relations with the prosecutrix for 6 days and thereafter, left her home and

threatened to kill her if she disclose it to anyone.

The second incident as referred in the FIR is of 12.03.2019

wherein the petitioner had asked the prosecutrix to accompany him and on
1 of 3
23-06-2019 19:52:11 :::
CRM-M-24601-2019 -2-

her refusal, he pressed her breast and threatened her to circulate the video.

He has further argued that there is a history of FIRs and counter FIRs

between the parties, due to which the petitioner has been falsely implicated.

There is no medical evidence to substantiate the allegation of rape. The

petitioner is in custody since 30.03.2019 and trial is not likely to be

concluded in the near future.

Learned State counsel has argued that the incident dated

10.03.2017 was not made public by the prosecutrix in order to maintain her

dignity in the society. The offence is serious and the petitioner does not

deserve the concession of bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Admittedly, the occurrence attracting Section 376 IPC is of

10.03.2017. The other occurrence is of 12.03.2019 which attracts the offence

under Section 354 IPC. The FIR for the offence which took place on

10.03.2017 was registered on 13.03.2019. There is no medical evidence in

support of commission of offence. Thus culpability of the petitioner is yet to

be established during the course of trial. The petitioner is in custody since

30.03.2019 and the trial in the case will take sufficient long time. Therefore,

this Court deems it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner

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

to the satisfaction of trial Court.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat

and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or


2 of 3
23-06-2019 19:52:12 :::
CRM-M-24601-2019 – 3-

The observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an

expression on the merits of the case and the trial court shall decide the case

on the basis of available material.

Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No

3 of 3
23-06-2019 19:52:12 :::

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