Allowed

Mukesh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Sept 2020CRM-M/15061/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. granted in a rape case. The petitioner was in custody since 2019. The court held that no useful purpose would be served by continued incarceration as material witnesses were examined and the trial would not conclude soon.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner admitted to bail during pendency of trial on furnishing bail bonds with two local sureties.

Mukesh Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2020)

¶1

CRM-M-15061-2020

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-15061-2020 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.09.2020

Mukesh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr. Ishant Khangwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, D.A.G., Haryana.

¶13

¶14

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)

¶15

The matter has been taken up through video-conferencing in the light of the pandemic COVID-19 situation and as per instructions.

¶16

The instant petition has been preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in FIR No. 330, dated 06.09.2019, registered under Sections 376 read with Section 511 and 452 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a victim, who was beaten by the prosecutrix and her family members. An MLR was conducted on him on 08.09.2020 and the injuries were noticed by the doctor. To escape the consequences, the present FIR has been registered. He refers to MLR of the prosecutrix where there is no mention of possibility of rape or any rubbing mark on the person of the prosecutrix. Even as per the FIR (Annexure P-1), the petitioner allegedly tried to rape her. The

¶18

JYOTI 2020.09.22 04:36 petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2019. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

-2-

¶20

CRM-M-15061-2020

¶21

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the instant petition and submits that the petitioner entered the house of the prosecutrix and tried to rape her. He further states that the complainant as well as the prosecutrix stand examined.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2019; the material witnesses stand already examined, out of eight witnesses, six witnesses still remain to be examined; the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner in further incarceration.

¶24

In view of the above, without adverting to the merits of the instant case, this petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail during the pendency of the trial, on furnishing bail bonds with two local sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

¶25

However, anything noticed hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶26

22.09.2020 jyoti-II		(JIT	ENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
	Whether speaking / reasoned :	Yes	No
	Whether Reportable :	Yes	No

¶27

JYOTI 2020.09.22 04:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mukesh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh 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

Manmohan Vs Balwinder Singh

Rupinder Kaur Vs Krishan Kumar and Others

Sanjeev Kumar and Ors. Vs Mahaveer Singh and Ors.

Bishan Singh Vs Surina Rajan IAS Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary and Anr.

Dashmesh Kaur Vs Sarvjit Singh and Others

Sushil Kaur Vs Seema and Others