AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.
Heard.
The petitioners counsel submit that from the first report submitted by the prosecutrix to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Phagwara, it is evident that the petitioners were not named. Even the name of petitioner number 6 was not mentioned, instead Ashok was named by her in the report, but subsequently after 33 days of the commission of the said offence, the complainant got her FIR recorded wherein she has named the petitioners including Bobby.
The State counsel admitted that the prosecutirx has not given any explanation in her FIR or in the statement recorded by the Police as to why she could not name these petitioners in the report given to DSP Phagwara and on what basis/information she named the petitioners in the report lodged on 17.9.1997. He also submits that the case is now at the evidence stage and it is fixed for 13.2.1998 for recording the prosecution evidence. Mr. Gill admits that challan is presented under Section 376/342/148/149 IPC against all the petitioners and other coaccused persons and even the charge is framed by the trial Court.
After hearing the rival contentions, in my considered view, the bail petition with regard to petitioner No. 6 is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed but the prayer for bail of remaining petitioners is allowed. In the first report sent to DSP, Phagwara, the prosecutrix has not named these petitioners. Later on how she came to know the names of these petitioners is not evident from the record. The explanation could be given by the prosecution for nondisclosure. No doubt the case is at the evidence stage but considering the above facts the bail petition with regard to petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 is allowed. If petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, they be enlarged on bail.
So far as petitioner No. 6 is concerned, from the order passed by the lower Court, it is evident that nude photos of the prosecutrix have been recovered at the instance of petitioner No. 6 which indicates the complicity of this petitioner in the commission of the offence. Hence his prayer is declined.
Before parting with this order, it is observed that neither the prosecution nor the trial Court has considered that challan was required to be framed under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC.
A copy of the order be conveyed to the trial Court.