Allowed

Ranbir Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Oct 2024CRM-M/8021/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a POCSO case alleging rape by the victim's Karate coach. With the victim and her mother already examined and only 3 of 21 prosecution witnesses examined after over three years of custody, bail was granted without expressing any opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Ranbir Singh Vs State of Haryana — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRM-M-8021-2024 -1-

¶2

IN T HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ A B AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGA R H

¶3

202

¶4

CRM-M-8021-2024

¶5

Date of Decision: 01.10.2024

Ranbir Sin g h

… Petitioner

Versus

State of H a ryana

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶12

Present: - Mr. Ankur Lal, Advocate for t he petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, H aryana.

¶14

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶15

The petitioner has filed the p r esent 2^nd petition under Section 439 Cr.P. C ., for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 378 dated 23.06.202 1 (Annexure P-1) registered u nder Sections 506 IPC and Section 6 o f the Protection of Children fro m Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Police Stat i on Mujesar, Faridabad.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petiti o ner, inter alia, submits that the aforesaid FIR (Annexure P-1) was registere d on the basis of statement of the victim herself, alleging therein that someti m e in the year 2020, the petitioner had commi t ted rape upon the victim at the h ouse of her friend, namely, Ritu. It has been further alleged in the FIR that d u e to the wrong act committed by

¶17

RISHU KATARIA 2024.10.01 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶18

CRM-M-8021-2024 -2-

¶19

the petitio n er upon the victim, in January, 2 0 21, the victim had even tried to swallow R a t Killer Poison.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations levelled b y the victim in the FIR (Anne x ure P-1) are utterly false and fabricated. There is no medical evidence wh a tsoever on record to support the allegations made against petitioner. In fa c t, the victim had categorically refused to undergo her medico-legal exa m ination, as is evident from her MLR date d 23.06.2021 (Annexure P-7). U pon examination, it has been recorded i n the MLR (at page 50 of the pa p er-book) that ‘alleged history o f ingestion of some unknown substance at h ome some time back on dated 23/6/2021. Gastric lavage not done as she is uncooperative’ . Furthermore, the friend o f victim, namely, Ritu, at whos e house the occurrence is alleged to have ta k en place, has not been arraye d in the list of witnesses in the present cas e .

¶21

It is submitted that the victim a nd her mother have already been examined b efore the learned trial Court as PW-5 and PW-6 and copies of their testi m onies have been appended with t h e present petition as Annexures P-3 and P- 4 , respectively. Learned counsel s ubmits that no doubt, they both have supp o rted the prosecution case in thei r respective testimonies. Learned counsel su b mits that keeping in view the fa c t that the petitioner has been in custody si n ce 24.06.2021, he may be released on regular bail.

¶22

Per Contra, learned counsel f o r the State vehemently opposes the prayer f or grant of regular bail to the petitioner and on instructions from ASI Vinod, submits that at the time of all e ged occurrence, the victim was only 14 ye a rs of age; whereas the petitione r was 66-years-old. It is pointed out that p e titioner is the Karate Coach o f the victim; therefore, it was a

¶23

RISHU KATARIA 2024.10.01 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶24

CRM-M-8021-2024 -3-

¶25

fiduciary r e lationship between the victim a n d the petitioner. It is submitted that the vi c tim, not just in her statement rec o rded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but also in her testimony (Annexure P-3) b efore the learned trial Court as PW-5, has levelled serious allegations a g ainst the petitioner. It is also pointed ou t by learned counsel for the St a te that even in the history/brief description of the incident of MLR (Annex u re P-7 at page 53 of the paperbook) the v ictim had narrated ‘alleged hi s tory of sexual assault multiple episode by the petitioner numerous times si n ce November, 2020’. Thus, it is prayed that the present petition may be dism i ssed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the State submits that custody certificate of the peti t ioner is not available today. Ho w ever, on instructions from ASI Vinod, lea r ned counsel for the State ad m its that petitioner has been in custody si n ce 24.06.2021 and he is not invo l ved in any other case. He further informs th a t out of total 21 prosecution wi t nesses, 03 witnesses have been examined b y the learned trial Court till date.

¶27

Having heard learned couns e l for the parties, but without commenti n g on merits of the case, howe v er, keeping in view the totality of the fact s and circumstances of the case , including: (a) the fact that the petitioner h as been in custody as an unde r trial since 24.06.2021; (b) that all the mat e rial witnesses i.e. the victim/c o mplainant and her mother have already be e n examined by the learned tria l Court; and (c) the fact that out of total 21 prosecution witnesses only 03 witnesses have been examined till date, t h erefore, its conclusion will ta k e considerable time, no useful purpose w o uld be served by further deten t ion of the petitioner. Thus, the present pe t ition is allowed.

¶28

RISHU KATARIA 2024.10.01 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶29

CRM-M-8021-2024 -4-

¶30

The petitioner-Ranbir Singh S /o Budh Ram, is ordered to be released o n regular bail on his furnis h ing bail/surety bonds to the satisfactio n of the trial Court/Chief Judic i al Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

¶31

However, it is made clear th a t nothing stated above shall be construed a s an expression of opinion on t h e merits of the case.

¶32

01.10.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

¶33

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

¶34

Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶35

RISHU KATARIA 2024.10.01 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Ranbir Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranbir Singh 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

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Raja Robin and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Another

Gurmeet Singh @ Dara Vs State of Punjab and Others

Arun Sheoran Vs Kavita

Rajwinder Kaur and Others Vs Kuldeep Singh

Dharam Pal Vs Monika and Others