Kuldeep vs State Of Haryana And Another

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J

The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 257, dated 02.04.2020, under

Sections 363, 366 IPC (later on added Section 376(3) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage

Act, 2006), registered at Police Station Sadar Bhiwani, District Bhiwani.

Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the petitioner, who has been in custody since 31st May, 2020, has been falsely implicated in

the case in hand, which is evident from the fact that even as per the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix, she

categorically stated that she left her home on 02nd April, 2020 and thereafter, got married to the petitioner. Not only this, it was also stated by her that

she did not want to return to her parental home and wanted to continue residing at her matrimonial home. It has been further submitted by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that as per the Ossification Test Report dated 01.09.2020 (Annexure P-5) conducted on the prosecutrix, was a major aged

19 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited the attention of this Court towards the statements of the prosecutrix and her mother

recorded before the trial Court (appended as Annexures P-10 & P-11, respectively), wherein, both the prosecutrix/victim and her mother, did not

support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from ASI

Sajjan, has conceded that both the prosecutrix/victim and her mother did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. Further, he

has submitted that as per the birth certificate of the prosecutrix, issued by the Health Department, her date of birth is 04th July, 2004, therefore, she

was minor on the date of alleged occurrence.

Heard.

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I deem it a fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioners, as

the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, more so, in the prevailing conditions due to the outbreak of COVID-19. The petition as such is

allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, it is made clear that anything observed

hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.