Sandeep v. State Of Haryana

Crl. Misc. No. M-4000 of 2015 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-4000 of 2015 Date of Decision:-03.3.2015 Sandeep

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA Present:- Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Neelam Kashyap, Deputy A.G., Haryana.

HARI PAL VERMA J.

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner Sandeep s/o Ram Singh, resident of Village Bangaon, Tehsil and District Fatehabad. The petitioner has been booked for having committed an offence under Sections 376(2) n, 376(2) F, 354A (i) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 6 & 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that prima facie no offence under Sections 376(2) n, 376(2) F, 354A (i) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 6 & 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual VIJAY ASIJA 2015.03.10 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Crl. Misc. No. M-4000 of 2015 -2Offences Act, 2012 is made out against the petitioner and there is inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR No.363 dated 7.12.1994. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case as the contents of the FIR are highly unnatural and improbable. He further states that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he hold the hand of complainant Priyanka and given slaps and fists while she was playing in the play-ground. There is no allegation in the FIR against the petitioner that the rape was ever committed by him upon the prosecutrix. It is contended that the cousin sister of the prosecutrix is in living relation with co-accused Kuldeep and because of this reason also the petitioner has falsely been implicated.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has argued that the prosecutrix Priyanka d/o Sohan Lal has made a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad and has levelled specific allegations against the petitioner, namely, Sandeep. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I find that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of grant of anticipatory bail. The pleas of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and that the cousin sister of the prosecutrix is in living relationship with co-accused Kuldeep are required to be considered during the course of trial. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. March 03, 2015 ( HARI PAL VERMA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2015.03.10 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document