Shiv Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Another

 &'&(

4

Ne eutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC: 07 HE HIGH COURT FOR THE IN TH E STATES OF PUNJAB AND HANDIGARH HARYANA AT CH )* *+

/  0 - '!'1!& &'&(



 

!!!2   
,- - -

     

!!!-3 -

 
 "



!

%.#"
  "

#
$
,(

! &
! -
.&
!%
, / '
&
% 
, /
)&

-
0
)
,,1
2 * 

#$ %!



3&
%
&

'
 *
&
%
 
!
4

 

  




 





  
!
" ,
56 76 7
'

   

 
    

 

 


! 
  #
$
 

8'
'
'
&

/ 
'
&
%%
'
%
'
' &
%
 
&
&
'(

) )




 
&

'

)
(%
( (
*
&
(%
9.:














(name wit thheld)

&
&
)
& &/


&
 *
 )
 
 (
'(

%
)

8& 

;%
,% 

%& &*

+
& 


 

</*
! *
&
 

&




&

'
&
(
3&

)

*
)
(



'(

#


&
&


'
&
( 3&
'(

)

%
&
3&
(

 
&
%
%
&

&
 

)&
& 
&
(/
&
)
&
%
&



&
%=
'
& 
&

&
'
&

&
%/
%
)&
*
&
&
& 


*


&
)


&/
*
%(

((

'
=


'
3&
&
( 
&





&
'
 %
&

!&

%

)
 
)&
&
'&
)
%&
( 
3&'

&
%
'
&
'&
&
%


&
 
*
*
&
&
)


& 
%

'

'*
'


)&
 
&
&
&

&
&
&




&
 

*

#
&
/

*


 
!
" ,

56 767
'

)


/
% 
)


3&
/(
'


&'
( *
=(

3&
%> 
)



2
)


'' 
(
 (
&
//(

&
0
(


)



&
&


&/
*

?
%&*
,%

+
#''
 
!
56 767
'

)


''
 
!
5
5



'

)




3&
(
'
&
/(
)
 
 
!
5
'
 




)&
&
 (
&
&
&
 
(%

&
%




&
(
(
&
&


)


*

After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan under Section 173



Cr.P.C. was presented and presently, the petitioner is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences. He had moved an application for grant of regular bail before the trial Court which had been dismissed, vide order dated 16.02.2024.
4.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to village fraction/village politics. There is delay of 07 days in lodging of FIR. The victim did not give her consent for medico-legal examination. In her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she chose to remain silent. The petitioner is in custody since 10.12.2023. The trial is likely to take time. He does not have any criminal antecedents. The ingredients for commission of offences, for which he has been booked, are not attracted. No case of committing rape upon the victim has been made out. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 5.

Status report has been filed by the respondent-State, as per which, there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner. The trial has commenced and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. The victim and other material witnesses are yet to be examined. There are chances of the petitioner's intimidating them or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6.

I &/


'
&
%

 
&
 &/

%
&
(
%



(

7.

As per the allegations, the petitioner, who was running a Naturopathy, Yoga & Acupressure Centre at Faridabad without holding a proper degree, had been treating the victim for her problem of stones and she used to visit him at his clinic every Sunday. On the fateful day, when the female doctor was not present in the clinic, he had called her inside the room and on the pretext of conducting her check up, had undressed her lower clothing upto her knees and inserted her fingers three times into her private parts by saying that she would not have difficulty in performing sex by doing so and then by bending both of her legs, he had again inserted his fingers inside and also pressed her breasts.

As per Section 375 of IPC, insertion of any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman by a person who makes her to do so with him or any other person amounts to commission of offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of IPC if such act is committed without her consent and against her will. The victim is yet to be examined. The pleas that in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

, she stated that she did not want to pursue the complaint filed by her any further, refusal on her pat to get herself medically examined as well as delay of 07 days in lodging of FIR are the factors, which are to be considered by the trial Court and any conclusive finding has to be given on the same after thorough assessment and evaluation of the evidence produced on record and not at this stage. The allegations in the FIR show a prima facie case for commission of offence of rape upon the victim, who was young girl of 19 years of age at the relevant time. There is nothing on record at this stage to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of trial.

1

petitioner, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and attendant facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that this petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
@ 

( 

&
*
/
( 
&
/

*
'
&
%%
'
 
&
%
%

&
(
&
&/



&
(
'
&
 '!'1!&'&( (MANISHA BATRA)


JUDGE          Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes