Jyoti vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 27.9.2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in FIR No. 124 dated 27.6.2010 under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana.

The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-1) read as under:

Stated that I am resident of abvoe said address. We are two sisters and six brothers. I am elder from all brothers and sisters. That on 2.3.2010, my engagement was solemnized with Jatinder Kumar @ Jitu s/o Ram Babu r/o Ramgarh Nangal P.S. Phillaur District Jalandhar. That engagement was got solemnized by my father and mother. Then on 6.3.2010 my father has gone for work at Sabji mandi and my mother has gone at Sabji mandi to purchase the vegitables and I was present at our home alongwith my brothers and sister. Then approximately 6 P.M. Jatinder Kumar @ Jitum came on their motor cycle at our home and told that your mother is sitting at my house. She telling that there is some urgent work and bring her quickly. I refused and he told that my engagement has been done with you. After alluring me and making false promise with me regarding marriage, he brought me at his house at Ramgarh Nangal. He brought me there on their motorcycle and brought me in the upper room at night time. At that place, without my consent, he tied my arms at back side and he raped me there and very next day, he took away me at his village Dubbi Aligarh U.P. Alongwith him. At there, he kept me under threats and continuously raped me upto t2 months. After that Jatinder kumar @ Jitu brought back me at Village Ramgarh Nangal. Then, on 21.6.2010, with great difficulty, I saved myself from their clutches and came back before my father and mother at Ludhiana. After returning back at our home, my health was not so good. Today, I am coming at P.S. Alongwith my mother namely Saroj Bala to given an information. I met you. Statement has been written, heard and found correct.

After hearing learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for cancellation of bail is made out. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while granting bail to Respondent No. 2, in para No. 4 of the impugned order, has held as under:

I have weighed the pros and cons of respective contentions. Some of the facts are so revealing that they cast a serious doubt on the veracity of version given by the prosecutrix. There is a compromise deed dated 18.5.2010. There is an application dated 14.5.2010 on record. The Investigating Officer of this case got it verified that this compromise deed as well as the application was filed by the accused before SHO Phillaur. Investigating Officer further got recorded statement of all persons who were parties to the compromise and found the facts to be correct. As per the complaint and compromise the prosecutrix had already left the house of the accused on the intervening night of 13/14.5.2010. The version alleged to be stated by the prosecutrix is that she had come to her house after giving a dodge to the accused side on 21.6.2010. This casts a serious doubt about whatsoever she stated. Further more she was subjected to medical examination on 1.7.2010. Her vaginal swabs were taken on this day. It is admitted case that even if her entire version is accepted she did not join accused''s company after 21.6.2010, though as per the compromise and complaint she had left the company of the accused on 13/14.5.2010. Despite this fact there is presence of Spermatozoa on this vaginal swabs. From where these spermatozoa came, there is none to explain. Besides that she has given two versions on the same day i.e. On 27.9.2010 which are quite contradictory to each other. As per medical examination, her radiological age is between 17 to 18. Her mother had projected her age at 21. All these facts make out a good cas for bail. Hence, the accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa/Duty Magistrate. Record be returned. File be consigned to the record room.

The reasons given by the trial Court while granting bail to Respondent No. 2 are sound reasons and call for no interference.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.