The single judge dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that given the serious allegations of kidnapping a minor and committing rape, extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail could not be granted.
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.
-1-
Crl.M.No.M-7532 of 2013(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-7532 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: March 21, 2013
Sahil Sharma
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Ms.Puja Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.14454 of 2013
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-7532 of 2013
The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.130, dated 4.6.2012, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 120-B IPC and under Section 66 of the IT Act, registered at Police Station Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Brief allegations as per statement of prosecutrix recorded before learned trial Court on the basis of which petitioner has been summoned to face trial alongwith co-accused who are already facing trial are that her date of birth is 18.10.1996. Date of occurrence is dated 19.5.2012 and she was about 16 years of age on that date. She had gone to take tuition class to the house of lady teacher. On the way co-accused Amandeep Singh, who used to study in her class, met her. He was accompanied by present petitioner-accused. In the FIR he was named as unidentified person as prosecutrix did not know him. However, in her
-2-
Crl.M.No.M-7532 of 2013(O&M)
statement before learned trial Court she named him. Further allegations are that petitioner-accused made her smell some medicine with the help of handkerchief and she started feeling giddy. Thereafter they had taken her to a room, where rape was committed upon her by co-accused and a movie was also prepared by co-accused and, thereafter, she was dropped by co-accused Amandeep Singh and present petitioner-accused at the same place from where they had picked her up.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioneraccused that prosecutrix had not named the petitioner in the FIR or in the subsequent statement, though FIR is a belated one. She has also contended that police did not file challan against petitioner-accused and, however, she made improvements in her statement when she appeared before the Court and named petitioner-accused without any basis.
However, it is a case of kidnapping of a minor girl aged about 16 years and committing rape upon her by co-accused and making a movie. Overt act has been attributed to petitioner-accused in the act of her kidnapping.
Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioneraccused.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Sahil Sharma for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
21.3.2013 meenu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving kidnapping and rape of a minor girl.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sahil Sharma
State of Punjab
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
