High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 02 P&H CK 0137

Mohan alias Monty vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 8 February 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-38892 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 694 words

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner Mohan alias Monty son of Ram Ujjagar, has directed the instant application for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against him, vide FIR No. 208 dated 5.7.2011 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 452 & 506 IPC only (the offences punishable under sections 354, 328 & 376 IPC were later on added) by the police of Police Station Saran, District Faridabad, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr. P.C.

2.

Concisely, the prosecution case is that on 3.7.2011, as soon as at about 5.30 P.M., the prosecutrix (name intentionally withheld) had gone on the roof of her house to collect the clothes, in the meantime, the petitioner, who resides in the adjoining house, came there. He was stated to have put some tablet in her mouth and one tablet from his envelope fell down, which was picked up by her. The petitioner threatened her with dire consequences, if she disclosed anything to any body. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, initially, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner, by way of FIR (Annexure P1), for having committed the offences punishable under sections 452 and 506 IPC only. Subsequently, the offences punishable under sections 328, 354 and 376 IPC were added in this case.

3.

Notice of the application was issued to the State.

4.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this regard.

5.

As is evident from the record, that originally, in the wake of statement of prosecutrix (Annexure P1), a criminal case was registered against the petitioner only under sections 452 and 506 IPC. He was arrested on 5.7.2011 and was allowed regular bail by the Magistrate on 6.7.2011. After 15 days of the occurrence, the complainant moved another application, wherein, she has stated that on 3.7.2011, the petitioner after entering the house, caught her hands and outraged her modesty. So, the offence u/s 354 IPC was also added, which was bailable offence.

6.

Not only that, the complainant and her parents appeared to be not satisfied with the release of the petitioner on regular bail. They managed to move another 3rd application from their daughter after 48 days of the occurrence, further stating therein that petitioner has committed forcible rape on her. Thereafter, the offences under sections 328 & 376 IPC were added as well and petitioner was again arrested on 23.9.2011.

7.

It is not a matter of dispute that the prosecutrix did not level any allegation of rape against the petitioner either in her 1st statement (Annexure P1) or in 2nd statement (Annexure P2). Even the 1st MLR dated 4.7.2011 did not indicate any evidence of rape. In the present set of circumstances, whether any offence punishable u/s 376 IPC is made out or not, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. The petitioner, who is stated to be a young boy of 19 years of age, was earlier allowed bail twice in this case and he was again arrested after the addition of offences after 48 days of the occurrence under sections 328 & 376 IPC on 23.9.2011. Since then he is in judicial custody. The conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. There is no history of previous involvement of petitioner in any other criminal case.

8.

In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the main case, the instant petition is hereby accepted. The petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad.

9.

Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the trial of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petitions in this relevant direction.