Umesh Verma Alias Goldy v. State Of Haryana And ANR

  
      !
"#$%#&#
# #  #
' # ' ()* +

,*,-
 

             

 # 
.$/ 0 " 0  #
0#$# # 

   !"

   

# $ % !!

     &&& #
0#$# #-"1#/2 '   (  )*+ ,, -.. (  /0 (

% /0#  2  

    30.09.2021 City Panipat (Haryana) 376 AB, 376(2) (n) and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act') 3 4    "   

 

     5 /0# 3 *66+3637% .  

    # .  2  *89 0,  9

:,:! (    (  ;% %  . (  " 

.  % -  # : - % 

 4  2  

.. 

3<6<3637  %  (        "% .       

.    (.    "=($  .. "   ";          (. (  



 (   (     %%  -

  (>   2 /0 .%  (>  

  ,       - 

      $        ,          /0  %  .    ( "      '  "  %   

 ;   79) ,,%  %  

.    "

/0> (.      "  (       '    %     7?733637 !  

        ".          

 78* ,,%  ,              .                  . He had moved an application for grant of regular bail before the learned trial Court which had been dismissed. The first petition for bail as moved by the petitioner before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as CRM-M-45293-2022 had also been dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2023.

3.

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds and it is argued by his counsel that the trial is likely to take time as so far only seven witnesses have been examined. The petitioner is in custody

 since 15.12.2021. Infact, this FIR was a reaction of the fact that the parents of the victim had been involved in a case bearing FIR No. 414/2021 registered under Sections 302, 394, 420, 411, 467, 471 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Patel Nagar, Delhi and the petitioner had not extended any support to them. It is further argued that this fact alongwith the period spent by the petitioner after dismissal of his previous bail petition is sufficient to extend benefit of release on bail to him. Therefore, it is argued that petition deserves to be allowed.

4.

Status report has been filed by respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that thorough investigation has been conducted in the matter. Allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The victim who is only an eleven years old girl was living at the mercy of the petitioner and her grand-mother and despite being a close relative of the victim, he not only ravished her repeatedly but also extended threats to her. The trial is at its fag end as out of total fifteen prosecution witnesses, twelve have been examined. The victim also stands examined and has supported the version of the prosecution. Therefore, it is argued that neither there is any change in circumstance and even otherwise no ground to allow this petition as the previous petition filed by him was dismissed on merits. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.

9 :   

   

    "% %  .  . "   

 (    %   "%    "%. 1    %    "  

 " "(% 

  

   %" (.  

.  "($"    .. "   ";     ' 

.    .         . "       

" (   ( ,  (    .   (

 (  (  % (   (   (; (    (    @ .    "%   

.    "

  .   

 >  % "            0   

      " (

%   8 0   ("    ( "

 (

  ;

  

     <    (  .

     3#
0#$# #4 " '

,*,-