Rakesh v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M-44992-2024
!"#$%$& Rakesh
' ()'
$ ** + *)
! " # $%
&& '
( ))) * + *),$ * + $ ,-. "
"/,0- 1 2& & & $ 34 2 (
865 4"
056 65 " ! 9 : +6+ ; <:": => 56.
606+6+ 7
( 3 $ 2.
Version of the prosecution is that FIR, Annexure P-1, has been registered on the complaint of J....., name withheld (hereinafter referred to as "prosecutrix's mother/complainant") stating that on 22.07.2021, when she went to get herself vaccinated, she left her six years old daughter (hereinafter referred to as "the prosecutrix") with her friend, Dolly. A few days later,
+ when the prosecutrix went to her mother's house at Karol Bagh, she confided in her grand-mother that Rakesh Chadha (present petitioner) tried to coerce her into oral sex. He threatened that in case, she revealed the incident to anyone, he will kill her family members. Upon coming to know of the incident, complainant went to R.M.L. Hospital, for medical examination of the prosecutrix. Upon coming back to Faridabad, when she confronted her friend, Dolly and lodged a complaint for taking action against Rakesh.
3.
Counsel for the petitioner urges that some of the prime witnesses such as the prosecutrix's grand-mother and the doctor from R.M.L. hospital, have not been cited by the prosecution. He submits that the charge under Section 06 of the POCSO Act has been wrongly framed. It is also his argument that there is an unexplained delay of 16 days in lodging of the FIR and the alleged incident never took place as the petitioner lives in a two room accommodation with his family members. He claims that as all the vulnerable witnesses have been examined and the petitioner has undergone a custody of more than 2 1⁄2 years, he deserves to be released on bail. By referring to the cross-examination of the prosecutrix's mother, he submits that she is in a matrimonial litigation and she is not reliable. 4.
Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the petition by submitting that the petitioner is accused of a serious offence. He has filed custody certificate dated 14.09.2024, which is taken on record. He submits that the first petition filed by the petitioner was withdrawn on 12.12.2022 and there is no change in the circumstances to enable the petitioner to approach the Court again. He submits that the charge was framed in December, 2021 and most of the witnesses have been examined.
- 5.
4
$!
5 :
?
9 ! 4 $ !$ ! ! !
! & & & ! $ ! $ & ! * !
9
& 9
' ! 5, "
"
! ! !
' &
& !! $ @ * "
9
' &
$ 0 !
. 2 & $
$
$ 9
! 6 '
& &
* "
? 9
9
$ "#$%$& -* + *). A &/
B /2 A $ B /2