Petitioner accused of enticement and rape of a minor niece filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The High Court dismissed the application, refusing extraordinary relief at this stage, while directing the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.
Bail application dismissed; trial to be concluded within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.M.No.M-17615 of 2011(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-17615 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 11, 2011
Sanjay
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.K.C.Bhatia, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.253, dated 11.11.2009, under Sections 363, 366, 120-B IPC and Sections 376, 323, 212 IPC (added later on), registered at Police Station Chandhut, District Faridabad.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully
This is 4th application for grant of regular bail filed on behalf of the petitioner-accused. His first application was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order of this Court dated 19.2.2010 passed in Crl.M.No.M-2306 of 2010. Second application filed on his behalf was also got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.7.2010 passed in Crl.M.No.M-20140 of 2010. Third application filed by him was also got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6.1.2011 passed in Crl.M.No.M-29263 of 2010.
Crl.M.No.M-17615 of 2011(O&M)
-2-
Brief allegations against petitioner-accused are that he is related to prosecutrix, who is minor girl of about 16 years of age as her uncle. Wife of present petitioner-accused gave telephonic call to the prosecutrix that her uncle, i.e., present petitioner-accused was standing outside her house and that she should come outside of her house. She came outside of her house. Petitioner-accused met her. He gave her some sweets to eat and thereafter she became unconscious and when she regained consciousness, she found herself in a room with one boy, namely, Sunil, who committed rape upon her.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioneraccused that he has been continuing in custody since 4.4.2010 and that trial has not been concluded so far and only prosecutrix and her father have been recorded as yet. It is further contended that the story of prosecutrix is not believable and that there are no allegations of rape against present petitioner-accused. It is also contended that one of the accused, namely, Chintu was found innocent by the police and, however, lateron, he was summoned on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the prosecution and thereafter he was released on regular bail.
However, bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned State counsel by saying that petitioner-accused was responsible for enticing away a minor girl aged about 16 years, who was also related to him as his niece and thereafter rape was committed upon her.
There are serious allegations against petitioner-accused. As per the allegations, he was responsible for enticing a minor girl of 16 years of age. He kidnapped her in connivance with his wife from the house of prosecutrix and thereafter rape was committed upon her by co-accused.
Crl.M.No.M-17615 of 2011(O&M)
-3-
Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of regular bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused, at this stage.
In view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Sanjay for grant of regular bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial by giving the short adjournment and efforts be made to conclude the same within six months from the next date of hearing, which is stated to be 19.8.2011.
Registry is directed to send copy of this order to learned trial Court for compliance.
11.8.2011 meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner accused in a case involving enticement and rape of a minor girl.
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the trial proceedings.
Sanjay
State of Haryana
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
