Arshad vs State of Haryana

L.N. Mittal, J.—Accused Arshad has filed this petition u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr. P.C.) for bail in case FIR No. 280 dated 26.05.2012 registered under Sections 376, 366-A, 363 and 506 IPC at Police Station Nuh, District Mewat. According to prosecution version, the petitioner, who was employee of the complainant, kidnapped the complainant''s minor daughter aged less than 17 years. After recovery of the prosecutrix, she stated during investigation that the petitioner also committed rape on her. Consequently offence u/s 376 IPC was also added.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no allegation of rape in the FIR. However, obviously there could not be allegation of rape in the FIR because the FIR was lodged by the complainant regarding kidnapping of his daughter and by that time complainant''s daughter had not been recovered and therefore, the complainant could not know that the petitioner had committed rape on the prosecutrix.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that in statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C., the prosecutrix did not state about commission of rape with her by the petitioner. However, this contention also cannot be accepted at this stage because statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 30.05.2012 whereas prior to it, the prosecutrix in her statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. recorded on 29.05.2012 had already stated that the petitioner accused had committed rape on her.

It may be mentioned that according to birth entry, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 24.08.1995 and thus she was aged less than 17 years at the time of occurrence on 25.05.2012.

For reasons aforesaid, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner kidnapped and raped minor daughter of his own employer, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. Dismissed in limine, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case.