High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/24124/2021dismissed

Ajay Pal Singh @ Sunny v. State Of Punjab

2021-07-01Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24124-2021 Decided on : 01.07.2021 Ajay Pal Singh @ Sunny . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL (Through Video Conferencing) PRESENT: Mr. S.S. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab assisted by ASI Jagdish Kumar.

**** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 83, dated 04.10.2019, under Sections 354-D, 376, 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Shahpurkandi, District Pathankot.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 27.02.2020 and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding anytime in the near future, as only 07 out of the 34 prosecution witnesses cited, have been examined so far. He further submits that in fact, it was a case of consensual relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix and it was only on account of the pressure exerted on the prosecutrix by her family, the instant FIR was lodged levelling false allegations against the petitioner.

Per contra learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from ASI JAWALA RAM 2021.07.02 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-24124-2021 - 2 - Jagdish Kumar, has submitted that no doubt two material witnesses including the prosecutrix, have been examined before the trial Court, however, the prosecutrix has supported the case of the prosecution in its entirety and has reiterated the allegations against the petitioner, which were made by her in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned State counsel has further apprised the Court that the the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender subsequent to the registration of the FIR in question.

Heard.

There are serious and specific allegations levelled against the petitioner coupled with his antecedents of having been declared a proclaimed offender earlier, therefore, this Court is not inclined to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Petition stands dismissed. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE July 01, 2021 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2021.07.02 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document