Satan Kumar @ Satan v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-17900-2020 [ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-17900-2020 Date of Decision : 04.08.2020 Satan Kumar @ Satan ...........................................Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ......................................................... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL ...

(Through video conferencing)

Present:

Mr.Ashish Pal Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pawan Sharda, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

...

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 66 dated 08.04.2016 under Sections 376 and 376-D IPC (Section 4 of POCSO Act 2012 added later on) registered at Police Station Shimlapuri District Ludhiana.

Contends that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused on the basis of supplementary statement (Annexure P2) of the prosecutrix which was recorded after two months of the alleged occurrence wherein she levelled allegations of rape against four persons including the petitioner. The learned counsel contends that the supplementary statement is at complete variance with the first statement inasmuch as in the first statement the complainant had levelled allegations only against one Lalan Shah and not against the petitioner. Not only this, the medical examination which was conducted soon after the occurrence in question did not support the factum of the prosecutrix having been raped by as many as four persons as no injury marks were found on the person of the victim. The learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Balkaran Singh, while opposing the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner contends RUPINDER KAUR 2020.08.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-17900-2020 [ 2 ] that there are serious allegations levelled against the petitioner of violating the person of the victim coupled with the fact that the petitioner had absconded and was declared a Proclaimed Offender and was arrested as recently as on 10.12.2019. However, the learned State counsel has conceded on instructions that it was only in the supplementary statement recorded after almost 2-1/2 months of the alleged occurrence that the allegations of gang rape were made for the first time by the complainant and the name of the petitioner had cropped up. The learned State counsel has further apprised this Court that the case is fixed for 18.08.2020 for framing of charges.

Heard.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel and keeping in view that the petitioner has been in custody since 10.12.2019, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars as the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future. I deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail. The petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, it is made clear that any observation made herein above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

( MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) 04.08.2020 JUDGE rupi Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable:

Yes / No RUPINDER KAUR 2020.08.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document