Suraj v. State Of Haryana



   !  "!
#$%&$'$
$ $  $
( $    ( )*+ ,

$- .  

   


 

 $ 
/%0 1 #!1

$
1$%$ $  






!
"# # $


%&#




 #(
 )#*$
+$
#,# # ---- $
1$%$ $.#2 $03 4 **
#
#,
'

$
.( &

#**
(
/& 

 !


!
  & /
#
) **
#
! 
'# !  )!

# #
. '

!

#
123
#

124
 & 

% *,
#
#5

 &
#


/
6
#

27 

+, !
 

'




 &

89:
'
00  5

 *#
.# *

;

. * ;
 <#

 &


 &

04.06.2020 Israna, District Panipat Section 365 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and later on added

 (Sections 328, 363, 366-A and 506 of IPC under Section 6 of POCSO Act) added later on 4 " '
'#& !
&#
 * %#
'

!
 

 #*




#
!
#'

;
)#


=8=>4=4=$

!
.# '
#
)

& *#

'

.,
!
& *#

?<@


!! * 
#**

!
%


?@
 #
)

!! * 
)!

)#
!

# !


!#
* '

!

93=A4=4=$
)

# ,

#

 &

!
!#

#)#,
.,



;

#**,
#
&#


 &

9>A
'
;0
)#
 
;

% 




) 


=A=>4=4=$
!
& *#

 &

#


# !


!#

.

&
.,
!
 


#

!
!#
5

#
! 
)

!
#

#,
! 
!
%


)#
 & % 
' !
&

,

=:=64=4=
!



)#
# 

3==>4=49
<

% 

$
''

& 



 &


947$
9>9$
9>>2
#

A=>
'
;0
#

 #
)

!
 &

>
'
0
&
) 
#


'


& *

& #,

% 

#

#*
'

#*


&!#**#
)#
 

#

  *,$
!




'#&

#*
'


&



#'

''

& 

!# %
#
#*

'


# '
.# . '

!
* #

)!

&!
!#


%

37=74=49 9 !
 

'

.,




#

# 
.,
!


&  *

!
!#
.

'#* *,

*


&# 


&

,


&
3==>4=49

!#
 '

# #
)

!
!
%

=8=>4=4=

!#
#*
/

'

#

#

,
.# *
#*


&#
#

)#
*#

#
#*


&# & **#

!
.

'
.# *

/


#
'

.,
 $
!#
#**
#

!
)#
#5

&

,
# #



% 

 !
&

& 

'
!
.# *
 %

*,
#

!


!

  & /
)!

)#
!
 #
)


!
&#
#
) **
#
! 
'# ! 
 
*#

!#



% 

!
  &


)


#
 &

. '

!
* #


 
' ! 

)#

 %
# ,
 '*
  
!  '

 $


# 

 % 

.
% !
&

& 

'
.# * 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and, therefore, it is urged that he does not deserve to be given the concession of bail. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.

6.

A perusal of Annexure P-7 and Anneure P-8 which are copies of the statements of the victim and the complainant respectively recorded before the learned trial Court as PW-1 and PW-2, reveals that neither of them have implicated the present petitioner in commission of either of the offences for which he has been booked and charge-sheeted. Both of them are shown to have stated that nothing wrong had happened with the victim and

 that she herself had left her house on 30.05.2020, when a quarrel had taken place between her mother and herself. Both of them stated that the petitioner had not committed any act of sexual upon the victim at any point of time. In this manner, these witnesses are shown to have resiled from their statements allegedly recorded before the police implicating the petitioner in commission of the subject offences and no incriminating evidence has been extracted against the petitioner from their statements. 7.

In view of the nature of the evidence which has come on record in the form of statements of both these witnesses, the period spent by the petitioner in custody and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, but without meaning to make any comment on the merits. I am of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.  & $


#** 
!


.
 * #

.# .( &


'

!

 

#*B ,
.

!
#

'#&

0!

'


#*
# B
< ,
#
&

& 

7 ;


&*#

. %#


#
! 

#.

%
!#**


#
#
/ 

!
 

!
&#  :



&
!
#

#** !$
#**

#*

'
# ,



'&  5$
1$%$ $6 #!(

$- .

5# 3
1!

! 
 #5

B
 #

 
B


4
1!

! 
  #.*  
B