Sonu Kumar v. State Of Haryana

 

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

.,./


   


 

    !% !
0&12 $"2

%
2%&% %

    
 
    

 



 !

" #

$

 .

%%% %
2%&% %/$3!%14 &  



 

()*+

+ 

,-    ' ./   '

#0 ./!

 
 

 Dadri City, District Charkhi Dadri 34/354-D/364/376/511 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') (120-B added later on)

2     

      



  '   ./'

 -



'   

'   

--

  34 131)

  -#  

-  

-   # , 6

#

'     

-


   '

 -! 14 )317  '      

&   0, '



  

  8   

 

 ##   

  - #     # 
 

-     

 , ,   

-

#

     ' 

  

   

  # +0  ,#  

    1) 131)    

      

     



-  ,    



 ' #   

 #

 0  ##    

#

  # , #

 

)

&  



'

 

-  '

 - ' 

 he had not been named in the FIR for the act of kidnapping/abducting the victim, sexually harassing her and making an attempt to commit rape upon her and no specific allegation has been attributed to the present petitioner. Rather the same had been attributed to the co-accused. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Even in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the victim has not named the petitioner. He has been falsely implicated in this case. His custodial interrogation is not required. 4.

It will not be out of place to mention here that vide order dated 15.12.2023, the petitioner was directed to join the investigation and as per the status report submitted by learned State counsel, the petitioner has joined the investigation on 21.10.2023. No recovery is to be effected from him. 5.

Learned State counsel has very fairly admitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Though it is submitted by him that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and there are chances of his absconding, if extended benefit of bail and it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

 6.

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

7.

The petitioner has joined the investigation. He was not named in the FIR. No direct participation in commission of subject offences has been attributed to him. His custodial interrogation is not required. His detention would serve no useful purpose. Therefore, keeping in view the nature of the allegation which have been levelled against the petitioner, and other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for exercising powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and extending benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and order dated 15.12.2023 whereby the petitioner was directed to join the investigation is made absolute, '"



      #   

  ()*1     +    + 

 

*

 



#  -     

  

5%
2%&% %6 $") .,./