Allowed

Rohit v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC3 May 2012CRM-M/25595/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed an application for anticipatory bail and pre-arrest bail for the petitioner in a rape case. The court noted discrepancies in FIR delay and lack of medical examination while confirming the prosecutrix's age was above 17.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail and ordered to be released on bail if arrested, subject to conditions under Section 438(2)(i)-(iii) Cr.P.C.

Rohit Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-25595 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-25595 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 3^rd , 2012

Rohit

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

.... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present Mr. R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anurag, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana, for the State.

¶14

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶15

Crl.Misc. No.25762-63 of 2012

¶16

Applications are allowed as prayed for. Annexures P6 and P7 are taken on record.

¶17

Main case

¶18

Rohit, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.298 dated 31.7.2011 at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal for an offence punishable under sections 376, 511 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The brief facts, required to be noticed for disposal of this petition, are as under :-

¶19

The prosecutrix, aged about 15 years, is studying in 12^th class

¶20

Crl. Misc. No.M-25595 of 2011

¶21

¶22

in a school at Faridpur. On 27.7.2011, she was coming from the school alongwith her cousin, Vikas. On the way, while she was in front of the house of Rohit, the petitioner, he was found standing there. Rohit told the prosecutrix that his mother was calling her, on which the prosecutrix went inside the house, which adjoins the temple. Rohit then bolted the door of the house from inside, broke open the string of salwar of the prosecutrix, opened the zip of his pant and tried to commit rape. The prosecutrix raised alarm which attracted one Om Tyagi, who rescued the prosecutrix from the clutches of Rohit. The petitioner then extended threat to the prosecutrix of killing her entire family if she disclosed this incident to anyone or took any action against him.

¶23

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is delay of four days in lodging this FIR. He has submitted that for the occurrence that took place on 27.7.2011, the FIR was lodged on 31.07.2011. The complainant, the father of the prosecutrix, has been working for Om Tyagi at his farm. According to him, Om Tyagi is a resident of a house, which is more than 10-12 houses away from the place of occurrence. He has submitted that the cries of the prosecutrix were audible to the person at that place but Vikas, who was accompanying the prosecutrix at the time of occurrence, did not hear any such cries.

¶24

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation several times. According to him, the offence for which the case has been got registered is punishable under section 376 read with section 511 IPC. According to him, it is a case where the prosecutrix was not got medico-legally examined and

¶25

Crl. Misc. No.M-25595 of 2011

¶26

¶27

therefore, it can be presumed that there was no injury on her person. He has further submitted that the father of the petitioner had levelled allegations of embezzlement against the sarpanch of the village and it is on account of the same, that the sarpanch of the village has got this false case mainipulated against the petitioner.

¶28

Learned State counsel , on the other hand, has admitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation. According to him, the petitioner is not entitled to bail because on 9.10.2011, the petitioner stopped the prosecutrix on the way asking her to take back the case got registered by her.

¶29

On 9.1.2012, during the course of arguments, the age of the prosecutrix was claimed to be above 17 years by learned counsel for the petitioner for which, Annexure P2 was placed on record. Learned State counsel was directed to verify the age of the prosecutrix as per Annexure P2. Learned State counsel has admitted Annexure P2 to be a genuine document and that the date of birth of the prosecutrix to be 12.8.1993 as per which the prosecutrix was about 18 years of age on the date of occurrence.

¶30

The allegation in the FIR relating to the threat extended by the petitioner appears to be illogical. When Om Tyagi was there at the spot, who had come to the rescue of the prosecutrix, it cannot be believed that the petitioner would have threatened the prosecutrix of killing her entire family if she disclosed the alleged incident to any one. The incident, if any, had already come to the notice of Om Tyagi and he did not extend any threat to Om Tyagi against disclosing it further to any one.

¶31

In the incident dated 9.10.2011, the petitioner has been

¶32

¶33

Crl. Misc. No.M-25595 of 2011

¶34

arrested and released on bail. It is a case where the FIR is delayed by four days. However, the delay in lodging the FIR can be explained in such cases very easily, but there is no explanation for not getting the prosecutrix medically examined which is necessary to distinguish a case of attempt to rape from the case of assault with a view to outrage the modesty of a woman, which is bailable.

¶35

In this view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find the petitioner to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. The petition is, consequently, allowed and the petitioner is granted the concession of anticipatory bail. He is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the conditions mentioned in section 438 (2) (i) to (iii) Cr.P.C.

¶36

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶37

May 3^rd , 2012 som

Rohit v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjit Kaur Vs Kulvinder

Ram Kishan Yadav Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Azad Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Angrej Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Jai Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.