Khushi Ram @ Monu Yadav v. State Of Haryana And Another
! "#$%#&## # #' # ' ()* +
,#- .
# /$0 1 " 1 #1#$# #
!"!!#$ %
&! ' #$$"#
#$ %
& ( ))) #1#$# #."2 #03 *
+ ,%
%
-. % , /0& 112#323((4(2, %
567$#281#295 941'%
25 0 :
#3714 %
594 281( 0: %
1 ;:;$%
%
* #<% '
. %
.
%=>?@ ' , ,
, ' ' , 34:
(437# ,%
4241(437 , ,' ' , . , & .# (4(3#
%
# #'. ,.!% .
$ ,
' %.
, '
4633(4(3
,
. + , .% , ,
+ ,
% , >@ '
+ ,#>@ % . = %%
A %.
#
,A
,
# '+
+ , % ' % .
. %,
$%% , # . .
+ , %
,
* ,
' 2 4(4((4(5#
. %
!
,
.
3(45(4(5# !
4545(4(5 5 B %
,
!
,
% ,
'
A %#'% .'
%= ,'
4633(4(3 ' !
0. ' %=' ' ,
% %%
% ,
$ '
%
(445(4(2# %,'+ , %
4 % . ,0, %#
%=%
*
4142(4(2# ' .
, . ' .
'1-8
.
. %+ , % , !
# %.
+ ' %= ' ' %
,%,
#,
4142(4(2; % %
295#281( 25 0: %
1 ;:;$% %. 0
, ,
/0
% % %=
,
. , .
(437 ,
/0 %C. .
#,
., %
%
-. 5.
Status report has been filed by respondent-State. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He had been sexually exploiting the prosecutrix since the time when she was a minor and had performed marriage with her by extending threats. He along with his family members had caused miscarriage of her pregnancy. His custodial interrogation is required for thorough investigation of the matter. There are chances of his intimidating the prosecutrix or absconding, if extended benefit of pre-arrest bail. Rather he has already been extending threats to her and mis-using the concession of interim bail. Therefore, it is argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
6.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully. 7.
As per the allegations, the petitioner had been harassing the victim since the year 2018, had firstly committed rape upon her on 03.06.2018 and had also ravished her, subsequently, while she was studying in Mohali and was staying in a hostel therein. As per the allegations, he had forcibly solemnized marriage with her and she had even become pregnant but she had suffered miscarriage due to the extension of beatings by the petitioner and his family members. Whereas, according to the petitioner, the victim who was an adult female had voluntarily performed married with him, as they were in love with each other since long. She had become pregnant and as their relationship was not acceptable to her parents, therefore, she was forcibly taken away by her father along with him by physically assaulting by the petitioner on 06.03.2023. 8.
Annexure P-7 is a copy of order dated 15.05.2023 shown to have been passed by the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate (SDM), Hisar in an application filed under Section 97 of Cr.P.C. by the present petitioner and a perusal of the same reveals that the victim had recorded a statement before the abovesaid officer to the effect that she wanted to stay with her parents and not with her husband and also wanted to take divorce from him. No allegations that she had been forced to perform marriage with the petitioner had been kept confined by him or that it was he who had caused miscarriage of her pregnancy are shown to have been levelled by her in that statement. It is not in dispute that she had performed marriage with the
petitioner. The prosecutrix did not lodge any complaint against the petitioner from the year 2018 till the date of lodging of FIR in this case i.e. on 13.12.2023. As such it is a debatable question as to whether the petitioner had forcibly committed rape upon her before performing marriage with her or they were having an affair and relationship between them at that stage was consensual. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no more required. Though it was argued that the petitioner is extending threats to the victim but no specific instance has been quoted by her counsel.
In view of the discussion as made above, taking all the circumstances into consideration but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case, lest the same prejudice the trial Court or the case of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for exercising powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and extending benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the order dated 26.02.2024 is made absolute subject to compliance of following conditions by the petitioner:- (i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
(ii) He will not make any contact with the prosecutrix or other material witnesses during the course of trial and will not visit the vicinity where the prosecutrix resides. (iii) He will not tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses.
(iv) He will not leave the country without permission of the trial Court.
6 %
.
%
# !%
:
.
' %
%
% %
#
#
%% %' ' 5#1#$# #6 " '
,#- .