SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1081

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANISHA BATRA, J.
Kuldeep alias Dholia – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M NO. 51788 of 2023
Decided On : 24-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal, Advocate; For the Petitioner (Through Video Conferencing).
For the Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

The court granted bail due to inconsistencies in the complainant's statements and insufficient medical evidence supporting the allegations of sexual assault.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376(2)(n), 506, and 450 - Petition for regular bail - Allegations of sexual assault leading to victim's death - Inconsistencies in complainant's statements regarding timeline of events and lack of conclusive medical evidence of rape - Petitioner granted bail considering prolonged custody and likelihood of trial delay. (Paras 1, 3, 7, 8)

(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail include the nature of allegations, duration of custody, and likelihood of trial delay - The court emphasized that the merits of the case should not be prejudged at this stage. (Paras 4, 6, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No.0320 for alleged sexual assault on a minor, who died shortly after being admitted to the hospital. The complainant's statements contained inconsistencies regarding the timeline of events leading to the victim's death.

Findings of Court:
The court noted the lack of conclusive evidence supporting the allegations of rape and the inconsistencies in the complainant's account, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner deserved bail.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the complainant's statements and the sufficiency of evidence to support the allegations of sexual assault.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the inconsistencies in the complainant's statements and the absence of conclusive medical evidence warranted the granting of bail to the petitioner, emphasizing that the merits of the case should not be prejudged at this stage.

Result: Petition allowed; petitioner granted bail.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Manisha Batra, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0320 dated 28.05.2023 registered under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (For short "POCSO Act") and Sections 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC (Section 450 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Bhiwani Sadar, District Bhiwani, Haryana.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that on 28.05.2023, on receipt of a telephonic information regarding admission of the victim "K" (name withheld) in PGI, Rohtak as a case of sexual assault, a police party headed by HC Suman reached at PGI, Rohtak and sought information of the doctor regarding condition of the victim. As the victim was not opined to be fit to make statement, therefore, the statement of her mother i.e. complainant "B" (name withheld) was recorded who disclosed that the health of the victim "K" who is her seventeen and half years old daughter had started deteriorating from sometime and on making inquiries from her, she came to know that she had not received her menstruation from the last three months and also disclosed that the petitioner who is real nephew of the complainant had done some wrong with her and had threatened her with dire consequences. She further disclosed about getting her admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak. On the basis of her statement and after registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The victim died on the same day. The present petition was arrested on 29.05.2023. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented against him and presently, he is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner and it is argued by his counsel that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Infact the victim had been admitted in General Hospital, Bhiwani on 20.05.2023 and remained admitted there till 24.05.2023 due to some respiratory and cardiac problem and on 24.05.2023, was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak for cardiologist opinion and was thereafter admitted therein. The complainant had demanded money from the father of the petitioner for the treatment of the victim as on 26.05.2023, the victim had started suffering from some respiratory body-wide infection leading to dangerously low blood pressure. It was on account of denial on the part of the father of the petitioner, that the complainant had threatened him to face dire consequences and thereafter had involved him falsely in this case on 28.05.2023. He has argued that infact the victim was got discharged from PGIMS, Rohtak against medical advice on 28.05.2023 and was again admitted to General Hospital, Bhiwani on the same day wherein she had died. He has argued that there was no evidence of her being subjected to rape. Her pregnancy test was found to be negative and it was only on account of suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome that her death had occurred.

4. It is further argued that the petitioner is in custody since long. The complainant has since been examined. There are no chances of his intimidating the witnesses. He is in custody since 29.05.2023. The scientific evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. Trial is likely to take time. Therefore, he argued that the petitioner deserves to be given concession of bail.

5. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State as per which, the petitioner had suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in commission of offence of rape upon the prosecutrix. Allegations against him are serious in nature. Most of the witnesses have since been examined and only two witnesses remain to be examined. It is further argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against him, the petitioner does not deserve to be given concession of bail.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top