Akashdeep Singh v. State Of Punjab



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

-$. /


  



 
 
     $ 
0%1 2 #!2

$
2$%$ $  


 


!"


 


 


  ### $
2$%$ $/#3 $14 $
 

 
 
"
%&'

(( 

"

)


*+

,- *+
. /
 "


" 29.06.2021 Civil Lines Batala, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 (Sections 328,34,450,376-D of IPC added later on) 0 1 
"


"
! 


 

  
  




 
*+
,





 
  
"
)

" 2
34
 
,  alleging therein that she was a fifteen years' old girl studying in a local school. On 28.06.2021, at about 2:30 PM, she was alone in her house when one Vicky who was residing in her neighbourhood came to her house and asked for

 cold water. When she went to kitchen to fetch water for him, he followed her and started doing indecent acts with her. She resisted but in the meanwhile, he put a handkerchief on her face, thereby, making her unconscious. On regaining consciousness after 3-4 hours, she found herself lying in the bed of a room of house of the said Vicky while having no wearing apparel on her body. She raised alarm, on hearing which her family members came there, whereas the accused Vicky managed to flee. She had become unconscious again. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 13.07.2021, wherein she stated that when the accused Vicky had committed rape upon her on 28.06.2021, after covering her face with a handkerchief and taking her to his house, at that time, the present petitioner and one Sukha were also with the said Vicky. On the basis of said statement, the present petitioner was nominated as an accused in this case. 3.

As per the further allegations, subsequently the prosecutrix was stated to have sent a complaint to the SSP Batala on 02.09.2021, alleging therein that infact, it was one Bobby @ Kawaljeet Singh who had committed rape upon her on the pretext of performing marriage with her on 28.06.2021 and as his parents had assured thereafter that they would perform her marriage with Bobby @ Kawaljeet Singh and due to connivance of her own parents with parents of accused Bobby @ Kawaljeet Singh that she had taken the names of Vicky, petitioner-Akashdeep and Sukha. However, she recorded a statement on 21.05.2022 before the police, wherein she stated that complaint dated 02.09.2021 was not submitted by her. The petitioner

 moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur which was dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2021.

% $
 

 
)

 



 
 


 
)
 
" 


,




*+
5 ,

"

""


 

 
"
)
 " 2





 




 

"

 .
 "

 "
!
"


 




+

"



! 


1
 




 






"

,
 






)






 
 ")
 

 
 

"

,
 
1)
6
7,

,

!



+






 
8
"


  "

"



 





)

2 "

 "
 !
 






!

"

!


!




 
$


 "
!

"

 
  

 
+


 



"
 
" 





8 



)






  
!



!
" "

-
  5.

Status report has been filed by respondent-State, as per which, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix had taken name of the present petitioner. She also recorded in her statement before the Investigating Officer that no complaint on 02.09.2021 submitted by her before the SSP, Batala or other police officials authorities and she wanted to initiate the action on the basis of allegations levelled in the FIR. It

 is argued by learned State counsel that the victim is yet to be examined. There are serious allegations against the petitioner as his complicity in the subject crime is made out from the statement of the prosecutrix as recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.. Hence, it is urged by him that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. It is, however, admitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation.

6.

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

7.

Though notice was issued to respondent No.2 but the same has been received back unserved with the report that she is not residing at the given address. The petitioner has joined the proceedings of the case. His custodial interrogation is no more required. He was not named in the FIR and was implicated as accused on the basis of statement recorded by the prosecutrix after a gap of fifteen days from the date of lodging of the FIR. There are no allegations against him that he had committed rape upon the victim or had administered some stupefying substance to her. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, I am of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence the same is allowed subject to compliance of the following conditions by the petitioner-
 5




8 
 9)
 

  "




 "9

 "

5 )
 




, 


 

, )
):

 5

 


+

; "

  ,
"
 




" 
 
 

) 
"
 
)


 "


5


 
, 

!

"

"
 )
 

 )


"
, 

)

 ! 5

 )
 


(

!)
 




 
,
"
 






"

 :

! 5


!

" )
, 
 



 
 
( !

 +

! 

!



 )


! 
 
 

 
 ")
" "
' +


"  


! 

!

 ) 

 

" 

 "

-
 
  



)



 "

 
$
 
(
 " 

"
 
 
 
, 


 "
)
 

<

"



,
 

"  )

 

" 6$
2$%$ $7 #!(

-$. /