High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 01 P&H CK 0292

Pardeep vs State Of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 22 January 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 2433 Of 2021

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

19 paragraphs · 342 words

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J

The instant petitioner has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 15, dated 10.04.202003, under

Sections 4, 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offencs Act, 2012 and Sections 34, 363, 366-A, 376, 376 DA, 506 IPC, registered at Women

Police Station Hansi, District Hansi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that totally false allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the FIR in question. Further

contends that a perusal of the FIR reveals that no overt act has been alleged qua the petitioner of sexually assaulting the victim. Learned counsel has

therefore prayed for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner, as he has been in custody since 12th April, 2020 and only challan has been

presented till date.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from ASI

Nanhi, has submitted that the petitioner was an active participant in the crime in question, inasmuch as, the petitioner along with the co-accused drove

the 14 years old victim to the grain market, where, she was sexually violated by the co-accused. He has further submitted that though there are no

allegations of the petitioner sexually assaulting the 14 years old victim, however, the fact remains that after dropping the victim at the grain market,

with the co-accused who then raped her, he left the place on his motorcycle.

Heard.

Prima facie, there are serious allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR in question, which clearly reflects his participation in the crime in

question. Not only this, even in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by the victim subsequent to her recovery, she has specifically named the petitioner

and attributed a role to him in the crime in question, for which, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail.

Petition stands dismissed accordingly.

However nothing contained herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of this case.