Petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a sexual offence case. Court noted material witness had already been examined and no threat existed. Found petitioner's counsel made out a case for bail as continued custody was unnecessary.
Petitioner granted bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
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-
CRM-M-11047-2021
109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-11047-2021
Date of Decision: August 05, 2021
Akash Gola
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr.Gaurav Gupta,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.B.S.Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
Matter has been taken up through video conferencing via Webex facility in the light of the Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.
Instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.228, dated 17.12.2020, under Sections 376(2)(N)/323/450/506 IPC, registered at Police Station Women NIT, District Faridabad.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made in the FIR are totally false as admittedly the petitioner and the complainant were in relationship voluntarily. He contends that subsequently some differences took place between both of them and on that account, the present FIR was malafidely lodged against him. He further submits that the allegations of making the video and taking photographs of
the prosecutrix, as alleged, are totally false as no recovery of such material
MEENU 2021.08.05 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh
CRM-M-11047-2021
-2-
alleged, had been made by the prosecuting agency. He has contended that now the prosecutrix has been examined in the Court as PW1 and though she has supported the case of the prosecution, but the petitioner is behind bars since 03.01.2021 and thus, there cannot be any such threat apprehended by the prosecution in influencing the material witness, as she has already been examined. He further contends that petitioner and complainant both were classmates and the petitioner is 23 years old and his further custody is unwarranted.
Learned State counsel has also submitted that the material witness has already been examined but has opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner.
In totality of the facts and circumstances, I find that counsel for the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail to the petitioner. The trial would take some time for its conclusion and no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for further period.
Application is allowed.
Bail to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression
on the merits of the case.
August 05, 2021 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable ? Yes/No
MEENU 2021.08.05 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving allegations of sexual offence.
Whether the petitioner's custody beyond 03.01.2021 serves any purpose in view of the material witness already being examined.
Whether the allegations in the FIR were lodged with malafide intent given the prior voluntary relationship between the parties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Akash Gola
State of Haryana
RAJESH BHARDWAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
