Govinda vs State Of Punjab

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J

Instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.PC for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.258 dated 30.07.2020 registered under

Sections 363, 366-A IPC at Police Station Sohana.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been in custody since 31.07.2020 and the trial is unlikely to conclude in the

near future as only challan has been filed till date. While inviting the attention of this Court to the allegations levelled in the FIR in question it has been

further submitted that a perusal of the same clearly reveals that the petitioner as well as the victim were in a relationship and the victim had been

accompanying the petitioner of her own accord. Learned counsel submits that the victim in her statement recorded soon after the recovery had had

not levelled any allegation against the petitioner rather she had categorically stated that she had accompanied the petitioner of her own accord since he

was a friend of hers. Still further, learned counsel submitted that as per the Final Report under Section 173 Cr.PC (Annexure P-4), the offence under

Section 366-A IPC had been deleted and offence under Section 366 IPC added even though from the allegations levelled in the FIR in question and

the statement of the victim the offence under Section 366 IPC was not made out.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to controvert the factual aspect of

the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He on instructions from ASI Bhagat Singh has submitted that the charges are likely to be

framed on the next date of hearing fixed before the trial court i.e. 28.12.2020.

Heard.

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel and the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 31.07.2020, the trial is unlikely to

conclude in the near future more so in the wake of outbreak of pandemic Covid-19. Hence, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is

admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be

construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.