Allowed

Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Feb 2019CRM-M/41531/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge oral order granting regular bail to the petitioner accused-petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C., citing prosecution's inability to name him and lack of tangible evidence, noting the trial is unlikely to conclude soon.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Rohtak.

Anil Kumar Vs State of Haryana — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-41531 of 2018 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Criminal Misc. No. M-41531 of 2018 (O&M) Date of decision : February 01, 2019

¶4

Anil Kumar

¶5

....Petitioner

¶6

versus State of Haryana

¶7

....Respondent

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh

¶9

Present : Mr. Rajdeep Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Baljinder Virk, DAG, Haryana for the State

¶10

Fateh Deep Singh, J. (Oral)

¶11

This order shall dispose of first regular bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. of accused-petitioner Anil Kumar filed in case FIR No. 562 dated 23.10.2017 under Sections 365, 376, 506 IPC, 3 SC/ST Act, 1989 and 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak.

¶12

The brief facts that emancipates from the submissions of the two sides are that on 23.10.2017 daughter of the complainant Aman Kumar aged around 14-14½ years eloped as she did not return back to her home leading to the registration of the present case.

¶13

During the course of investigations the girl was got recovered on 24.10.2017 leading to arrest of accused Akash and subsequently on his

¶14

DALBIR SINGH TIWANA 2019.02.05 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

¶15

Criminal Misc. No. M-41531 of 2018 (O&M) -2-

¶16

statement present petitioner was arrested.

¶17

Mr. Rajdeep Singh Gill, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. made by the girl nor he has been ever identified and is behind the bars since long time.

¶18

Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Satish Kumar, Police Station Civil Lines Rohtak does not disputes the facts brought to the notice of the Court but has opposed the bail in the light of the heinousness of crime and seriousness of allegations contending that co-accused has named the petitioner.

¶19

Appreciating the submissions, the total inability and apathy of the prosecution either to name the accused in the FIR, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim or any tangible evidence is a fact which undermines the case of the prosecution. The only semblance of evidence that has come about as per the stand of the State is the statement of the coaccused which per-se is not admissible and its legal worth is a debatable issue to be adjudicated at the time of trial. The petitioner is behind the bars since long time. The trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, no purpose will be served by retaining the petitioner in jail. Accordingly, he is ordered to be released on regular bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Rohtak.

¶20

The present petition stands disposed off accordingly. The observations made herein above shall have no bearing on

¶21

DALBIR SINGH TIWANA 2019.02.05 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

¶22

-3-

¶23

Criminal Misc. No. M-41531 of 2018 (O&M)

¶24

the merits of the case as these are purely for the disposal of the present bail application.

¶25

		( Fateh Deep Singh )
February	01, 2019	Judge
'tiwana'
	Whether speaking/reasoned ?	Yes/No
	Whether Reportable ?	Yes/No

¶26

DALBIR SINGH TIWANA 2019.02.05 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar 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

Sukhpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Tara Chand Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sushil Vs State of Haryana

Mohammad Yaqoob Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sushila Gupta Vs State of Punjab and Others

Lakhvir Singh @ Lakha Vs State of Punjab and Anr.