Randhir Singh @ Rohit v. Ut Of Chandigarh




 



 

  

 



 

  

 



 

  

 



 

 

   
   
   
  




 



 !"!##
RANDHIR SINGH @ ROHIT !!!! $
% !
UT OF CHANDIGARH

























!!!

 & ' 

(

(

(

( 







 )*
( +!
 + 
(  
  )*
( +!
 + 
(  
  )*
( +!
 + 
(  
  )*
( +!
 + 
(  

$   
($!
+, -
.,/$0
'1
$
2
& $!

($!
%$
+3-0
0
2 '4$2!

(  
0
!

(  
0
!

(  
0
!

(  
0
!
1.

Petitioner has filed instant petition under Section 483 of 2$5
4$6
+,$6 2
+ 20
##7 for grant of regular bail in FIR No.7 dated 04.01.2024 under Sections 376 (2) (n), 376 (3), 506 IPC and Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, (Section 69-B (2) and 69-B (4) of IT Act, added) registered at Police Station Sector-39, Chandigarh.
2.

Facts of the case are, prosecutrix gave her statement that she came across Rohit in February, 2021 outside her school. They started talking to each other. One day, he took her phone and told her to collect the same by coming to his house. She went to the house of Rohit where he was alone. He did wrongful act with her forcibly and threatened not to disclose anybody. She was under threat. Matter was brought to the notice of Pradhan. He threatened to continue with physical relation with him otherwise he would

#
defame her by putting her obscene photographs and videos on social media. She faced continuous harassment for 2 years. He had put her photographs on internet. He hacked her ID and password. Finally, matter was reported to the police.
3.

Learned counsel for petitioner argued that he is falsely implicated in this case. He was arrested on 04.01.2024 and since then he is behind the bars. Due to lockdown, no school was open in the month of February, 2021. Story put forward by the prosecution is false and baseless. He further denied the allegations of creating fake ID or uploading obscene photographs. Petitioner is innocent. His regular bail application was wrongly declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide order dated 02.04.2025. At present six prosecution witnesses have been examined. Trial in this case may take long time. Therefore, his regular bail petition may be allowed.

4.

Status report has been filed by learned counsel representing UT, Chandigarh. It is pointed out that there are serious allegations against the petitioner regarding forcible sexual assault, giving threats and uploading objectionable videos and photographs of the victim on social media using fake account. CFSL report was received confirming uploading of obscene videos on Instagram account linked with petitioner device and IP address. Challan is already presented. Eight prosecution witnesses have been examined including prosecutrix and her mother. Considering the specific allegations, petitioner is not entitled to be released on regular bail. 5.

I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record. In the case in hand, prosecutrix is minor, who is allegedly sexually

7
exploited and continuously threatened by the present petitioner. After thorough investigation, challan is already presented and trial is going on. Statement of victim is recorded as PW1 (Annexure P-3), where she has fully supported her version. As per status report, eight prosecution witnesses have been examined. Therefore, trial in this case is going on at a good pace. There are serious allegations against the petitioner. Considering the gravity of offence, I do not find a fit case for grant of regular bail and the same is, accordingly, declined.








   



  



 





















8(  
9 8(  
9 8(  
9 8(  
9



































































  




  




  




  





 !"!##  !"!##  !"!##  !"!##

'
:22$
&6 4;$  '

 ;!
:22$
$&$3-

 ;