Shivam Bhasker @ Shivam @ Situ vs State Of Haryana

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.09 dated 9.1.2019 at Police Station Gohana Sadar, District Sonipat under Sections 363, 366-A, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act.

The FIR was registered at the instance of Satish, wherein it has been alleged that on 8.1.2019 while he and his daughter were watching TV in the night, then at about 11:30 PM his daughter went outside the room to washroom and later when he heard some noise he went out of the room and saw that Shivam @ Situ (petitioner) was taking away his daughter forcibly while holding her hand and was also carrying a pistol. It is further alleged that the petitioner was accompanied by one more person namely Paramjeet (Pintu).

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a false FIR has been registered against the petitioner and that infact after the daughter of the complainant was recovered, her statement was recorded in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein he has given a clean-chit to the petitioner and has infact stated that it was her parents and brothers who were trying to kill her.

The learned State counsel, while opposing the petition, has submitted that since the complainant's daughter was of tender age being aged 16 years only, it is apparent that the petitioner had enticed away the complainant's daughter on account of her tender age and her immaturity and in these circumstances he does not deserve the concession of bail. It has, however, been informed that the petitioner has since joined investigation.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

In view of the fact that the complainant's daughter, during the course of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., did not say anything against the petitioner and while also bearing in mind that the petitioner has since joined investigation, in my opinion, it is not a case warranting custodial interrogation. The petition, as such, is accepted and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 20.2.2019 are hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

It is, however, made clear that none of the observations made above shall be construed to be an expression on merits of the main case.

The present petition stands accepted accordingly.