Sunita vs State of Haryana

K. S. Kumaran, J.

On the statement of Chhedu, the FIR in question has been registered against the petitioner and another under Sections 363/366/376 IPC.

The allegation in the FIR is that petitionerSunita and her husbandBeerpal used to allure Geeta, the daughter of the complainant, and therefore, the complainant sent Geeta to his son''s house at Yamunanagar on 2.8.98, but on 4.8.98, Sunita and Beerpal went to the house of the complainant''s son Hari Singh, and while Hari Singh had gone out, they had taken away Geeta with them. The further allegation is that Sunita and her husband had done so to solemnise her marriage with a view to induct her into some illegal profession.

Petitioner Sunita and her husband Beerpal approached the Sessions Court, Jagadhri for bail, but their request for bail was declined by Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri. Petitioner Sunita has, therefore, approached this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though it is alleged in the FIR that her age was 131/2 years at the time of the occurrence, the doctor has given his opinion that she was 14 to 18 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that by giving a margin of two or three years, it will be clear that she was not a minor, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Geeta had stated before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that on 4.8.98, petitionerSunita and Beerpal had come to busstand, Yamunanagar, gave her some laddoo, on eating which she became unconscious, and they took her to Badaun where they had solemnised her marriage in a temple with Mahavir, the brother of Beerpal. She had also stated before the Magistrate that she lived with Mahavir for one month who had sexual intercourse with her. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Geeta had stated that Sunita and Beerpal had taken her to their village Augranabad Khalsa in district Badaun (U.P.) and solemnised her marriage, and contends that she has not stated that she was given any loddoo or that she became unconscious. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that Geeta had married Mahavir, the younger brother of Beerpal, and after marriage, the complainant in order to blackmail the petitioner and her husband, has lodged this FIR and that the said Geeta has also been allegedly recovered on 1.9.98.

While there is no evidence to show the exact age of the girlGeeta, the petitioner has produced copy of the evidence of Dr. Vijay Kirti (PW1) to show that her age was between 14 years to 18 years, though he had stated that on the basis of expert knowledge, he can say that her age was not more than 18 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a margin of at least 2 years can be given, and if so done, the benefit of the same will go to the petitioner.

In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Jagadhri.