Sidharth @ Vijay v. State Of Haryana

-1229IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 21.01.2021 Sidharth alias Vijay ......Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

Present:

Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. A.K. Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (ORAL) Case taken up through video conferencing.

Through the present revision the petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Karnal, whereby bail application of the petitioner in FIR No.61 dated 06.10.2019 under Sections 376-D, 506 and 365 IPC registered at Police Station Nigdhu, Karnal, was dismissed. Briefly stated, the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for committing rape on the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is a young boy of 18 years, has been falsely implicated in the case;

-2the prosecutrix while appearing before the Trial Court has categorically stated that she does not identify the petitioner to be one of the persons who raped her; even the prosecutrix's husband while appearing before the Trial Court has stated that the petitioner did not commit rape upon his wife; the aforesaid statements make the chances of petitioner's conviction extremely bleak; there is no medical evidence to support the prosecution's case; the petitioner has been in custody since 07.10.2019; there is no other criminal case against the petitioner and the petitioner's trial is likely to take a long time to conclude.

Learned State counsel opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has raped the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix as also her husband while appearing before the Trial Court have categorically exonerated the petitioner of the charge against him; the petitioner has already been in custody for the last over one year and three months and the petitioner's trial is likely to take a long time to conclude especially in the present circumstances when the world is facing the Covid-19 pandemic.

Keeping in view the totality of the above facts, the present case is considered to be a fit one in which the petitioner be directed to be released on regular bail. Resultantly, subject to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate, Karnal, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

It is clarified that the above observations have been made only for the limited purpose of deciding the present revision petition and the

-3same would not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Disposed of.

(Deepak Sibal) January 21, 2021 Judge R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No