Aakash Raghav v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-18585 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 31, 2020 Aakash Raghav

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

Present:

Mr.Atul Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** ARCHANA PURI, J.

Case has been taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing.

CRM No.16090 of 2020 The present application has been filed seeking exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures. Keeping in view the pandemic situation so existing at present, the said application is allowed. CRM No.M-18585 of 2020 Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.488 dated 31.10.2019 under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Badshahpur, Gurugram. Notice of motion.

Ms.Gaganpreet Kaur, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana, has VINEET GULATI 2020.07.31 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested the

CRM No.M-18585 of 2020 -2petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. The FIR was registered in the present case at the instance of Shakuntla Devi w/o Ravinder Kumar, who is mother of the prosecutrix. She states her daughter to be 16 years of age at the relevant time. The accusations against the petitioner Aakash Raghav are to have allured the prosecutrix into a room, where he established physical relations with her against her wishes and clicked her photograph. It was so on 02.08.2019. However, FIR was got registered on 31.10.2019, only when the information relating to the video clip came to the notice of the family members of the prosecutrix and on asking, the prosecutrix had disclosed about the occurrence in question.

The challan has though been presented in the present case and charge has been framed but however, statement of the prosecutrix has yet not been recorded. She is also stated to be minor at the relevant time. Considering all the aforesaid facts and the role assigned to the petitioner, at this stage, no case is made out for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

In view of the above discussion, the present petition stands dismissed.

July 31, 2020 (ARCHANA PURI) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No VINEET GULATI 2020.07.31 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh