High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/3238/2017allowed

Anuj v. State Of Haryana

2017-03-01Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg2 pages

CRM-M-3238-2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-3238-2017 Date of Decision:- 01.03.2017 Anuj ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. D.R. Singla, DAG, Haryana.

**** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Present petition is for release of petitioner on regular bail in FIR No.122 dated 23.09.2016, under Sections 342, 506 IPC and Sections 8, 4 (added later on), POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Women, District Karnal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations set out in the FIR the petitioner had called the complainant at his house and thereafter assaulted her. When the mother of complainant visited the house of petitioner, he physically assaulted her and pushed her mother outside and thereafter locked the room from outside. There is almost 14 days delay in registration of the FIR. Moreover, perusal of order dated 14.12.2016 declining the bail to the petitioner shows that mother of the complainant has given an affidavit in favour of the petitioner to the effect Naresh Kumar 2017.03.03 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh that the present case has been registered due to some misunderstanding.

CRM-M-3238-2017 -2Learned State counsel, on instructions from investigating officer, has informed that there are total 14 witnesses, who are yet to be examined.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record. The petitioner was arrested on 02.10.2016. Since then, he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. The final conclusion of trial will take a long time. In view of above facts, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge/Duty Magistrate, Karnal.

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, on merits in the trial of the main case, in any manner. March 01, 2017 ( RITU BAHRI ) naresh.k JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Naresh Kumar 2017.03.03 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh