Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. A.S. Bathindewala, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.

JUDGMENT :

Kuldeep Tiwari. J. (Oral)

Through the instant petition, the petitioner craves for indulgence of this Court for his being enlarged on regular bail, in case FIR No.224 dated 01.07.2023, under Sections 4 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and under Sections 377 and 511 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kalanwali, District Sirsa. 

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER

2. The petitioner was arrested in this instant matter on 02.07.2023, and the following allegations were made by the complainant:-

"Sir. Administrative Officer, P.S. Kalanwali. Sir it is stated that me Laddu Singh S/o Mahender Singh R/o Taruana, Tehsil Kalanwali Distt. Sirsa is resident of above address and do labour work. I have 2 sons and 2 daughters. My younger son Inderjit studies in class 8th at Taruana whose age is around 15 years. Yesterday on 30-06-23 around 2-30 pm our neighbour Kaka Singh S/o Nayab Singh @ Bona R/o Taruana took my younger son Inderjit from our home to his home and my son did not come back home for a long time and then went to see my son at the house of Kaka Singh S/o Nayab Singh @ Bona and saw that my son was in naked position and Kaka Singh S/o Nayab Singh @ Bona was trying to do wrong act with my son and on seeing me he released my son and yesterday i did not come due to fear of shame in society. Today i was coming to police station for registering complaint and you met me at the gate of police station. Legal action be taken against Kaka Singh S/o Nayab Singh @ Bona."

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his asking for the hereinabove extracted relief, has made the following submissions:-

(i) Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case;

(ii) During investigation, the statement of victim (minor child) was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, in which he did not support the allegations, which would attract the provisions of Section 377 and 511 of IPC;

(iii) Even despite the service of summon, the complainant failed to cause his appearance before the learned trial Court concerned, to get his statement recorded;

(iv) The petitioner is not a pre-convict or involved in any other case.

(v) Petitioner has undergone incarceration of more than 07 months;

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL

4. Per contra, the learned State counsel, who is in receipt of advance notice, has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner, as issued by the Deputy Superintendent, District Prison (Sirsa), Haryana. The same is taken on record. A perusal of the custody certificate reveals that the petitioner has faced incarceration of about 07 months and 10 days, as of today. A perusal of the custody certificate further reveals that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

5. Learned State counsel on instructions, imparted to him by SI Chandan, admits the fact that the victim, i.e. the minor child, has not supported the case of prosecution, which could attract the provisions of Sections 377 and 511 of IPC, under the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, of the minor victim, and the relevant part of the same reads as under:-

"Question What statement do you want to give?

Answer Kaka Singh made me unconscious. After that what happened with me, I don't remember. Kaka Singh has not caused any injuury to me. Kaka Singh has not done anything wrong with me. There is no injury on my body."

6. Learned State counsel further informs this Court that in the instant matter, final report was filed way back on 31.08.2023, and thereupon, the charges have been framed on 27.09.2023. Learned State counsel also submits that out of the total 16 prosecution witnesses as cited by the prosecution, none has been examined till date.

ANALYSIS

7. "Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception". This basic principle of criminal jurisprudence was laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, way back in 1978, in its landmark judgment titled "State of Rajasthan V. Balchand alias Baliay", 19