Rahul Kumar vs State Of Punjab - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 1191

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1191

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vivek Puri, J.
Rahul Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-3058-2022
Decided On : 01-02-2022

Advocates:
Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate; for the Petitioner.; Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Aag, Punjab.

Headnote:
Bail - Rape Allegation - Summary
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in a case involving allegations of rape under Sections 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. The victim's mother alleged that the petitioner committed rape upon her daughter while she was working in the kitchen.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the victim did not identify the petitioner during the trial, and it emerged that the person present in the court was not the same individual who committed the incident. The court also noted the absence of DNA examination and the likelihood of a prolonged trial.
Issues: The issues revolved around the identification of the petitioner by the victim, the absence of DNA examination, and the potential duration of the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to grant bail to the petitioner based on the lack of identification by the victim, the absence of DNA examination, and the potential delay in the trial.
Final Decision: The petition for bail was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, with the court emphasizing that the decision was only for the purpose of the bail application and not an expression on the merits of the case.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Puri, J. (Oral) - Rahul Kumar-petitioner is seeking regular bail in the case bearing FIR No. 7 dated 05.02.2021, under Sections 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Narot Jaimal Singh, District Pathankot.

2. Briefly, the case has been registered on the statement of the mother of the victim alleging that on 02.02.2021 at about 11:30 AM, she returned back from the school where she was working as Class-IV employee and the victim informed her that Rahul Kumar son of Parshotam Lal committed rape upon her while she was working in the kitchen.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in custody since 05.02.2021, is not involved in any other case and furthermore, during the course of trial, the victim has not identified the petitioner.

4. On instructions from ASI Tarsem Singh, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application on the score that the victim has imputed allegations of commission of rape against the petitioner in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.Be that as it may, during the course of trial, the victim has not identified the petitioner. It has emerged in the statement of the prosecutrix (Annexure P-2) that the person present in the Court is Rahul Kumar son of Parshotam Lal i.e. the petitioner and is not the same Rahul Kumar who had committed the incident.

5. On a specific query by the Court, learned State counsel has pointed out that there is no DNA examination conducted in this case. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take sometime. As such, no fruitful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner in further custody.

6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

7. The aforesaid observations have been circumscribed only for the purpose of disposal of the present bail application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

8. The petition is allowed accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document