Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 3016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
Baldev Singh @ Rinku - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-44882-2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 29-10-2019
Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate for the Appellant; Ms. Rashmi Attri, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by ASI Teerath Ram
The court considered the length of detention and the progress of the trial in granting bail, emphasizing that further detention should serve a useful purpose.
Headnote:
Bail - POCSO Act - Allegation of Rape - Inconsistency in Date of Occurrence
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving allegations of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the POCSO Act. The FIR was lodged by the victim's mother, alleging that the petitioner committed rape on her daughter. However, there was an inconsistency in the date of occurrence as per the FIR and the statement of the prosecutrix.
Finding of the Court:
The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but noted that the petitioner had been in detention for about a year, and only 4 out of 16 prosecution witnesses had been examined. Considering these factors, the court concluded that further detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose and granted bail.
Issues: Inconsistency in the date of occurrence, Length of detention, Progress of trial
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the length of the petitioner's detention and the slow progress of the trial, indicating that further detention would not be justified.
Final Decision: The petition for bail was accepted, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
JUDGMENT
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. (Oral) - The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.212 dated 1.10.2018 at Police Station Daba, District Ludhiana under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, wherein offence under Section 12 of POCSO Act was deleted and offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act was added later on.
2. The FIR was lodged at the instance of Sushila, mother of victim, wherein it has been alleged that on 30.9.2018 she alongwith her daughter, husband and son of Chander Banu had slept on one bed at about 10:00 P.M. as per their routine. However, at about 3:00 A.M. when she woke up, she found that her daughter was not on the bed. Later when she checked up the washroom, her daughter was not even found there. It is alleged that she heard some noise coming from across the wall when she was standing on the terrace. She saw that the petitioner was committing rape upon her daughter and that the trouser of her daughter as well as of the petitioner had been lowered. However, upon noticing the complainant, the petitioner fled away from the spot.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and that the falsity of the case would be evident from the fact that while as per the FIR, the occurrence is stated to have taken place on 30.9.2018, but when the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-2), she disclosed that it was on 15.9.2018 that she had been raped by petitioner.
4. The learned counsel the petitioner has also referred to the MLR (Annexure P-3) in respect of the prosecutrix wherein the date of occurrence has been disclosed as 15.9.2018. It has thus been submitted that the FIR has been lodged falsely after consultation.
5. Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that in the present case the victim is a minor and that the petitioner cannot derive any advantage from the fact that there is some inconsistency in the date of occurrence. It has, however, been informed that the petitioner, as on date, has been behind bars since the last about one year and till date only 4 PWs out of cited 16 PWs have been examined.
6. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. While refraining from making any expression as regards merits of the case and while also noticing that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about one year and till date only 4 PWs out of cited 16 PWs have been examined, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
