Sat Narayan @ Shankar @ Satyanarayan Vs State of Haryana

Petitioner, an accused, in c a se FIR No. 84 dated 18.03.2 0 23, under Se c tions 323, 328, 377 of Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of PO C SO Act and Section 27 of the Narcotic D r ugs and Psychotropic Substa n ces (NDPS), Act 1985, registered against him at Police Station Purani S u bzi Mandi, D istrict Rohtak, has filed the p r esent petition for grant of reg u lar bail.

¶15

In brief, the allegation a g ainst petitioner is that he after administ e ring intoxicating substance/dru g to victim, aged about 17 years son of Mo h ani, resident of Fatehpuri Co l ony, Rohtak, forcibly commi t ted unnatural sex with him against his wishe s . On 18.3.2023, on an informa t ion received f rom hospital authorities regard i ng admission of victim boy ‘S’ on account of having received injuries in unnatural sexual interco u rse committe d upon him, police authorities r eached the hospital, collected r u qa

¶16

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-11421-2025 -2-

¶18

and ML R , sought permission of the Doc t or on duty to record the state m ent of injure d , who vide Annexure P-1 elab o rated upon the sequence of ev e nts that led t o the incident. The victim boy i n his statement alleged that he w as 17 years o ld and used to remain at home as he had left school after 7^th c l ass and he w a s a drug addict. On 15.3.2023, he was sitting in the office of his friend, n a mely, Sumit @ Boda from th e re, they went to the house of o ne Kalia, w h ose parents had died. There S h ankar (P), son of Amar Nath w as already p r esent. At about 10 PM, Sumit and Kalia went out to bring s o me goods a n d Shankar gave ‘Lal Pari’ d r ug to him and he became v ery intoxicat e d. During this period, victim b oy felt that Shankar was ope n ing his pant but due to intoxicating state, he could not resist and Sha n kar committe d wrong act with him. Due to heavily intoxicated condition, he fell asleep at the house of Kalia and on the n ext day, i.e. 16.3.2023, he retur n ed to his ho u se. On 17.3.2023, on feeling p ain, victim boy narrated the w h ole incident t o his mother, who brought hi m to General Hospital, Rothak for treatment, where he was under treatment. With this backdrop, a formal c ase vide FI R No. 84 dated 18.03.2023 w a s registered against him, u n der Sections 3 23, 328, 377 of Indian Penal C ode, Section 4 of POCSO Act a nd Section 2 7 of the Narcotic Drugs and Ps y chotropic Substances (NDPS), A ct 1985, at P olice Station Purani Subzi Man d i, District Rohtak.

¶19

Investigation was launched. Blood sample of victim boy w as obtained for chemical analysis. His ag e proof by way of copies of birth certificat e and school certificate etc. w e re collected. Place of occurre n ce was insp e cted. Statements of witnesses w ere recorded. Victim boy was a lso produced before the learned Judicial Ma g istrate Ist Class, Rohtak, where his statemen t under Section 164 of Code of C riminal Procedure (Section 18 3 of

¶20

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-11421-2025 -3-

¶22

BNSS) w as got recorded. Counsellng was also provided to the victim b oy. Accused was arrested on 23.3.2023, jo i ned in investigation and was got medico legally examined. During int e rrogation, he suffered disclo s ure statemen t and in pursuance thereto, h e got demarcated the place of occurren c e. Thereafter, challan was filed in the Court.

¶23

Petitioner filed an applica t ion for grant of bail before the learned A dditional Sessions Judge, Roht a k. The same came to be dismi s sed vide orde r dated 9.12.2024 (Annexure P- 6 ). 3. Learned counsel for the pe t itioner submits the petitioner has been fals e ly implicated in the present ca s e. Falsity of the case set up by the prosecuti o n is apparent from the fact that though the alleged inci d ent occurred in the late hours of 15.3.2023 a nd victim boy was got admitte d in the hospi t al on 17.3.2023 but the crimin a l proceedings in the shape of F IR was lodg e d on 18.3.2023. Continuing f u rther, learned counsel submits t hat the stand of the victim is that he was subj e cted to unnatural sex by petitio n er, who assa u lted him and also drugged him. But surprisingly enough, no injury marks w e re noticed either on the private parts or on the body of the vic t im. Moreove r , the Doctor who examined t h e victim, also did not notice a ny injury m a rks on the body of the victim i ncluding his private parts. At t his stage, lea r ned counsel has also referred t o the copy of the MLR (Anne x ure P-2). Wh e rein the Doctor who examined t he victim, observed as under:-

¶24

“T y pe of Injury Injury Details Marked Injury N o Ot h ers ON EXAMINATION N O EXTERNAL No 1 INJURY AROUND T H E ANUS AND SKIN TAG PRE S ENT NEAR ANAL ORIFICE ADV SURGEON OPINION.

¶25

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRM-M-11421-2025 -4

¶27

-

¶28

Ot h ers MULTIPLE OLD HE A D SCAR OF No 2 VERIOUS STAGE PR E SENT OVER BY LATERAL A NTERIOR ASPECT AND LEFT F OREARM.”

¶29

In this context, learned cou n sel also placed on record a cop y of the state m ent recorded on oath of Dr. M anish, who while appearing in the witness b ox as PW14, during the cour s e of his cross-examination, fairly admitted t hat no evidence of anal interco u rse was found.

¶30

Learned counsel also ref e rred to the DNA report d a ted 29.10.20 2 4 (Annexure P-5) wherein, foll o wing opinion was given:-

¶31

“DNA profile obtained fro m stains on source of item N o.2 (underwear stated to be of v ictim) which is not matching w ith the DNA profile of source o f item No.8 (blood sample state d to be of accused).”

¶32

The said report, as per lea r ned counsel, clinches the cas e in favour of petitioner.

¶33

The other leg of submissi o n raised by learned counsel for petitione r is that even though comp l ainant has been examined, but completi o n of trial is likely to take some t ime, for after prosecution evide n ce is conclu d ed, petitioner would also lead d efence evidence to substantiate his plea that h e has been falsely implicated. I n the backdrop of arguments ra i sed hereinab o ve, learned counsel contends th a t further incarceration of petiti o ner in custo d y would not serve any useful purpose. Prayer for allowing the petition has been made. 4. Status report by way of affidavit of Ravi Khundia, HPS, De p uty Superintendent of Police, Rohtak has bee n filed. While opposing the req u est for bail of petitioner, learned State c ounsel submits that in view of

¶34

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

CRM-M-11421-2025 -5-

¶36

seriousne s s of offence, no lenient view deserves to be taken in favou r of petitione r , whose past antecedents are fa r from satisfactory (being invol v ed in severa l cases, details mentioned in the Status Report). Further, lear n ed State cou n sel contends that in his statem e nt recorded ‘on oath’ in the Court, victim b o y has given a graphic descri p tion of the manner in which the incident o ccurred and petitioner commit t ed unnatural sex on him. Lear n ed State cou n sel next submits that if petitioner is released on bail, there is e v ery possibilit y of him fleeing from the proce s s of justice by not appearing in the Court. Pr a yer for dismissal of the petition has been made.

¶37

I have heard the learned co u nsel for the parties and have g o ne through t h e documents on record.

¶38

In view of the submissions a dvanced by learned counsel for the petitione r , but without commenting on th e merits of the case, the fact that the petitione r has been in custody since 2 3 .03.2023, after filing of chal l an, charge h a s been framed, complainant-vi c tim has also been examined, t h us, the possi b ility of petitioner overawing v i ctim stands negated. However, the possibilit y of completion of trial in the n e ar future, in light of the argum e nts advanced by learned counsel for petitio n er, is quite remote. This Cou r t is thus of t h e opinion that further incarcera t ion of petitioner would not onl y be violative o f his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, inclu d ing right to s peedy trial but would also be against the principle of “ Bail i s a general r ule and incarceration is an exception ” as held by Hon ’ ble Supreme Court in Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) RCR (Criminal) 131. 7. Resultantly, in view of dis c ussion made above, petitione r is granted t h e concession of bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bond s to

¶39

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

CRM-M-11421-2025

¶41

-6-

¶42

the satis f action of learned trial Court / Duty Magistrate concerned. T he petitione r shall abide by the following co n ditions:-

¶43

(i) The petitioner shall no t leave the country without p r ior permission of the trial Cou r t and shall deposit the passport in the trial Court.

¶44

(ii) The petitioner will not t a mper with the evidence during the trial.

¶45

(iii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iv) The petitioner will app e ar before the trial Court on e a ch and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific orde r of Court.

¶46

(v) The petitioner shall no t commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an a c cused, or for commission of w h ich he is suspected of.

¶47

(vi) The petitioner shall n ot directly or indirectly coe r ce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dis s uade him/her from disclosing s u ch facts to the Court or to an y police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

¶48

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his libert y . (viii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mo b ile number to the Trial Court f orthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of t h e trial and in case for any rea s on, the petitioner seeks to cha n ge any of the aforesaid, the s a me shall be done only with pr i or intimation to the learned Tr ial Court, stating the reason for the same.

¶49

(ix) The trial Court/Duty M agistrate may impose any o t her condition, as deemed appro p riate while releasing the petitio n er.

¶50

Accordingly, the present pet i tion is allowed and it is made c l ear that in ca s e there is any breach of the afo r esaid conditions, the State shal l be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail a s granted to the petitioner by t his

¶51

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-11421-2025

-7-

order.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein ar e limited for the purpose of pre s ent proceedings and would no t be construe d as an opinion on the merits of t he case and the trial would proceed independ e ntly of the aforesaid observatio n s.

¶56

04.11.2025 (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) gbs JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

¶57

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sat Narayan @ Shankar @ Satyanarayan v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sat Narayan @ Shankar @ Satyanarayan v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hissar Bhartiya Dak Tar & Govt. Employees Co-Op Urban (S.E.) T/C Society Ltd. Vs Krishan Kumar

Karan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagmeet Singh Alias Jassa Vs State of Punjab

Lovish Vs State of Haryana

S.C Chopra (Subhash Chander Chopra) Vs Amarjit Singh

S.C. Chopra (Subash Chander Chopra) Vs Amarjit Singh