Ranjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-48811-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:-22.11.2019 Ranjit Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Ms. Neetu Singh Aashat, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rashmi Attri, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ***** 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.332 dated 28.11.2018 at Police Station Division No.6, District Ludhiana under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code.

2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Ram Kumar, wherein it has been alleged that his daughter aged about 16 years went missing from home on 26.11.2018 and that he suspected that his daughter had been enticed away by the petitioner Ranjit Singh on the pretext of marrying her. 3.

The learned counsel for the petiitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and that infact he had earlier been granted bail by the Trial Court in respect of offences under Sections 363 and 366-A of Indian Penal Code in respect of which the FIR was lodged but PANKAJ KAKKAR 2019.11.22 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-48811-2019 (O&M) subsequently upon addition of an offence under Section 376 IPC at the time of presentation of challan, the petitioner was arrested and has been behind bars since the last about one year. The learned counsel has further submitted that, in any case, it is a case where the complainant's daughter had voluntarily accompanied the petitioner and when her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, she did not support the case of prosecution at all. It has further been submitted that the matter, in any case, stands compromised amongst the parties and in these circumstances the petitioner deserves the concession of bail.

4.

Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that since the victim was aged about 16 years at the time of occurrence, no case for grant of bail is made out.

5.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 6.

Without expressing anything as regards the veracity of allegations lest it may affect merits of the case and while bearing in mind that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about one year, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose as conclusion of trial is likely to take some time. The petition, as such, is accepted and it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

22.11.2019 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2019.11.22 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document