Bunty v. The State Of Haryana



  
  

   



   !

"#$

$%&'& ()!)
   

        
  * + )

,


, ,       

 

    

  

  

 !

 " #"  

, , 

-

)

."/
000



  $



 $

% 

 # & 



$

   &   

 

' ()*(()((  

  +, *-)-()() ' %.%/ 

$ +

   & 

   $



 &  $$     &   

 

' ()*(()((  

 +,  *-)-()()  

 ' %.%/ 

$0

 $$

 '





1    

 

 $  

/.2  3   

& $



#   #$ 0 $   

+4!

.2 



)/)-()() 

.(.()*.567(87!8.52%
/-)-)6 43

#   $



9 & :

;



:

 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody from 06.02.2021 which is almost two years and two months.  0&        

&$ 

   #

   # 

& 0 learned trial Court and the prosecutrix has already been examined.  0&   the allegations against the petitioner were that he alongwith some other person, who were standing outside the house, entered the house of the prosecutrix at 2:00 AM and there was an allegation of rape against the petitioner.  0&   there had been an unexplained delay of one month in lodging of the FIR and as per Annexure P-4 which is a medical report of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana Sunaria, Rohtak, no semen was detected.  0&   there are material discrepancies in the deposition of the prosecutrix.

He further submitted that it is a case where the prosecutrix who was earlier married with one other person from whom there was a decree of divorce and thereafter she again remarried from whom she separated and thereafter even as per the deposition made by the prosecutrix, she was in a live-in relationship with a third person namely Amit. He submitted that be that as it may, now the prosecutrix has already been examined and the petitioner has already faced incarceration for more than two years, therefore he may be considered for the grant of regular bail. On the other hand,   !

  " #  $    "   has submitted that it is correct that the petitioner has faced incarceration for more than two years and the prosecutrix has already been examined. She has however opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is



involved in number of other cases including Sections 379 and 380 IPC and under the Electricity Act and he being a habitual offender, is not entitled for the grant of regular bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has already faced incarceration for two years and two months. The prosecutrix has already been examined. There was a delay in lodging of the FIR for about one month. Although in such like cases delay is not of much significance but the fact that the petitioner is involved in other cases pertaining to either the Electricity Act or under Sections 379 and 380 IPC $    $   

#  0 $ $  #



 

  $ 

 

&  In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court deems it fit and proper to grant bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. 1  

$$0  $   #$ 0 $0

   #0 $ <        

      $     

$  3  <;  #  

    =

     

 # 0



0

$$ 0    ' 

 

&

      $& 

      



    



, , 



1.&/ -     

9    #  > <!

9  

0$  > <!