Rana Singh @ Ranbir Singh v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-31444-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:-30.10.2019 Rana Singh @ Ranbir Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Chandan Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rashmi Attri, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by HC Mangal Ram.

Mr. Gurbir Singh, Advocate for the complainant. ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.65 dated 25.4.2019 at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga under Sections 354-B, 509, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (Act No.45 of year 1860) and Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 (Act No.32 of year 2012).

2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of the prosecutrix, wherein it has been alleged that on 17.4.2019 when she was alone at her house, the petitioner, who is neighbour of the complainant/prosecutrix, called her while stating that the complainant is being called by her sister-in-law. When the complainant went to the house of the petitioner, she found that the petitioner PANKAJ KAKKAR 2019.10.30 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-31444-2019 (O&M) was sitting alone in a room and who immediately upon the complainant entering the room bolted the room from inside and attempted to molest her and also tried to remove her clothes. The complainant, however, managed to push the petitioner and escaped from the room. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and that, in any case, since challan already stands presented, further detention of the petitioner is not required. 4.

Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR, no case for grant of bail is made out. It has, however, been informed that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than 6 months and, till date, only 3 PWs out of the cited 13 PWs have been examined.

5.

Bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case and custody period of the petitioner and also that the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion as, till date, only 3 PWs out of the cited 13 PWs have been examined, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted and it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

30.10.2019 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2019.10.30 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document