In bail application for rape offences, High Court dismissed plea citing clear prosecutrix statement naming petitioner. Court rejected claim of inconsistency and held petitioner not entitled to bail despite delay in trial.
Petition for regular bail dismissed; petitioner remains in custody.
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. Misc. No.M- 1834 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-1834 of 2013 Date of Decision:30.01.2013
Satnam Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Crl. Misc. No.3484 of 2013
Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for.
Crl. Misc. No.M-1834 of 2013
Satnam Singh, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a
case registered by way of FIR No. 91 dated 11.08.2011 at
Crl. Misc. No.M- 1834 of 2013 2
Police Station Mehna, District Moga, for an offence punishable under sections 328, 366-A and 376 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecutrix cannot be believed because she has made a different statement at the trial from the statement on the basis of which FIR had been registered. According to him, in the statement she made at the trial, Annexure P-2 she does not name the other two accused. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 15.08.2011 and the trial is also not making desired progress.
At the trial statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded as PW-2. She has though not stated here that she has been raped by three persons, yet there is no discrepancy in the same regarding the name of the petitioner. As per the FIR she knew the petitioner and she named him in the FIR and the other two were not known to her, who had committed rape upon her alongwith the petitioner. Appearing as PW-2 she has also stated that she was raped by the petitioner.
It is a case where the petitioner claims that she was given something on taking of which she became unconscious and in the state of unconsciousness, rape was committed upon her. In such a situation, she may be unable to definitely say as
Crl. Misc. No.M- 1834 of 2013 3
to who , other than the petitioner, committed rape upon her. Since the statement of the prosecutrix is clear against the petitioner, I do not find him to be entitled to bail.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
January 30, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail considering prosecutrix statements sans supporting evidence
Whether discrepancies in bail application submissions regarding the role of other accused affect credibility
Whether unconsciousness claim exempts petitioner from liability for alleged sexual assault
Satnam Singh
The State of Punjab
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
