Rajesh Masih @ Rakesh Masih @ Rajesh Kumar v. State Of Punjab

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

,*,-
  
   


       
  # 
.$/ 0 " 0  #
0#$# # 

   !    "

  ### #
0#$# #-"1#/2 $   %  ! &'())  ** % % +,
  %- .

+,
/ % !  !  Tibber, District Gurdaspur Punjab '01.2, %) 3415     6,)7    !   83  &! ) %  9 %   :!  !  8538    ;6:):7 8 < !!%   %               +,
 -  *    8=53858' ! ;!

 9 % %%* * 8'53858'

 1 '5 - %-! * !

) ! %%* - ! ;    !.!!

  -- *!;!%> % *

  !;!% ; !!;   

 -! %;  !;!%;   -  %% $!.!!

    !;!%   !%

%!-!!

  -!

;  $   ! %;

!   ;!! *%  - ** ? %!     @ %;

%   !% !%    !

 !%-    !%  !

;   ! * !%  !

%*  8=53858';  *! * !

% :        !     !   '01.2   ,)  -  *   ,  * ! *-    !

 9- !  ! 31&)) -       % * *+,
- !%%;9  $   - 8153858'?-% !%%;9  $ !.!!

  -   @ %;

* !!  % !% !;   *  %%   !%%

 ! 30'))-  )  %;

    ! * %!    ! ' $   % ;   *    * ; ! % he has been falsely implicated in this case. The victim and her maternal grand-mother who appeared before learned trial Court have not supported the prosecution

 version and have not implicated him in the subject crime at all. There is no medical evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the offences as alleged against him. It is also submitted that no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody anymore. Hence, it is urged that he deserves to be given concession of bail and the petition deserves to be allowed.

4.

Learned State counsel has filed status report, supporting the version of the prosecution. It is submitted by him that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. Therefore, he does not deserve to be given 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.

As per the allegations, the petitioner alongwith the co-accused had forcibly taken the prosecutrix alongwith them on 23.01.2023 and after taking her to a secluded place, had committed the act of aggravated sexual assault upon her. However, the prosecutrix while appearing into witness box before the learned trial Court, has not supported the prosecution version at all. A copy of her statement has been placed on record as Annexure P-2 and a perusal of the same reveals that she has exonerated the present petitioner as well as co-accused from the allegations as levelled against them, so much so that she had even been declared hostile and allowed to be cross examined by public prosecutor, but still no incriminating evidence could be extracted from her testimony as against the present petitioner.

 7.

With regard to the recording of her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she stated that the same was recorded under the pressure of the police officials. Her grand-mother is also shown to have appeared as PW-2 and she too has not supported version of the prosecution at that time. Keeping in view the nature of the evidence that has come on record, the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed, hence, the same is allowed and       %  % !    *%A ;      !       )   B

! %  * A  2 ;  *  !!  4 , !%        %% ! 9    ! (  !   %%-

 *% !   ;     !   3#
0#$# #4 " '

,*,-