Samim v. State Of Haryana And Others

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 20, 2022 Samim .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:

Mr.Mohammad Arhsad, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.B.S.Virk, DAG, Haryana.

........

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL) CRM-19954-2022 Application for exemption is allowed as prayed for. CRM-M-23354-2022 This is the second petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0341, dated 18.10.2021, under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC, registered at Police Station Punhna, District Nuh, Haryana.

The petitioner approached this Court on earlier occasion also by way of filing CRM-M-47680-2021, which was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.03.2022.

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. He has submitted that the petitioner and the alleged victim had filed CRWP-9601-2021 before this Court for seeking

-2protection of their life and liberty, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.10.2021. He submits that the alleged victim is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner but their relationship was not acceptable to the family members of the complainant and hence he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has submitted that the FIR has been lodged by father of the alleged victim as they were against the relationship of the petitioner and the prosecutrix. He has submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has supported the petitioner, thus, false implication of the petitioner is writ large. He submits that petitioner is behind bars since 18.10.2021 and hence he deserves to be granted bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the alleged victim was less than 18 years of age on the date of occurrence and thus, her consent, even if at all is there, does not have any legal sanctity. He has further submitted that the trial is at initial stage and granting bail to the petitioner would prejudice the ongoing trial. He also submits that this is the second petition for bail filed by learned counsel for the petitioner and his earlier petition was got dismissed as withdrawn at that stage. Heard.

This is the second petition filed by the petitioner. Earlier petition was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn at that stage. Admittedly, the prosecutrix is minor. As submitted by learned State counsel, trial of the case is at the initial stage. Hence, granting bail to the petitioner at this stage would be prejudicial to the ongoing trial. Even otherwise, once the earlier petition was already ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.03.2022, this Court does not find any substantial change in the

-3circumstances as on date.

Resultantly, the present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.

September 20, 2022 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No