Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Sandeep – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-12980 of 2021
Decided On : 19-04-2021
Bail - Criminal Law - Sexual Offenses - The court dismissed the petition for grant of regular bail in a case involving abduction and sexual offenses against minors, emphasizing the age of the victims and the support for the allegations in the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed for regular bail in a case involving abduction and sexual offenses against minors. The victims, aged 16 and 13, were allegedly abducted with the intention to marry the elder one. The girls were recovered, and the petitioner had been in custody since 01.03.2019.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the bail petition, emphasizing that the age of the victims and the fact that they were yet to be examined weighed against granting bail. The court also highlighted the support for the allegations in the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Issues: The issues revolved around the custody period, contradictions in the statements, and the consent of the minor victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the consensual relationship argument was not helpful considering the age of the victims and the support for the allegations in the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The petition for grant of regular bail was dismissed, with a clarification that the observations should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT :
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
1. The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.
2. This petition is filed for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.114 dated 27.02.2019 registered under Sections 354, 363, 366-A, 376 IPC and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat, Haryana.
3. The FIR was registered at the instance of father of the prosecutrixes (names withheld), who were 16 and 13 years of age and went missing on 26.02.2019. It was stated that Sandeep (petitioner) had abducted daughters of complainant with the intention to marry the elder one. After registering the FIR, the girls were recovered by the family members of the parties from Meerut. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is in custody since 01.03.2019. There are contradictions in the statements. The prosecutrix, who was 16 years of age, was a consenting party. The contention is that the conclusion of trial is likely to take time and the DNA report is still awaited.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail by submitting that the prosecutrixes are yet to be examined. The consent of minor victim will not be material. It is, further, argued that there may be contradiction in the statement made by 13 years old prosecutrix, whereas, 16 years old prosecutrix had supported the allegations in her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She further relies upon the FSL report to submit that semens were detected.
5. Considering the age of both the prosecutrixes, no case is made out for grant of bail, merely on the custody period. It is worth noting that the prosecutrixes are yet to be examined. The argument of consensual relationship will not be of much help, considering age of prosecutrixes.
6. The allegations have been supported in the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
7. No case is made out.
8. The petition is dismissed.
9. However, it is clarified that nothing stated here-in-above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
10. The observations are only for the purpose of disposal of the bail petition.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
