Nasir Raja vs State of Haryana

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

Petitioner''s counsel contends that the petitioner is aged about 16 years. He is arrested for an offence allegedly committed under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He further contends that so far as the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no medical report to that effect. Further, the doctor, while examining the prosecutrix, recorded her history, wherein she has stated that she was not ravished by the petitioner. On the following day, when he was examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she made such an allegation, which can hardly be relied on. Further, according to him, Ambala Court has no jurisdiction to try the alleged offence under Section 376 because as per the prosecution version this offence was committed in Delhi. To support this contention, he has relied on The State v. Sri Lal and others, 1971 Crl.L.J. 141; Jagan Nath and another v. State of Haryana, 1983 Crl.L.J. 1574 and Sunehra Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1987(2) Recent C.R. 436.

Learned Assistant AdvocateGeneral, Haryana, has opposed the prayer for grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner kidnapped a minor girl from the guardianship of her father, took her to Delhi on false pretext and there he committed rape on her. Thus, even if he is a young man, the concession of bail should not be given to him.

In the statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has clearly stated that she was ravished by the petitioner in Delhi. What weight can be attached to this statement in view of her statement recorded by the doctor while examining her medically is a point to be considered at the trial.

So far as the argument of territorial jurisdiction of Ambala Court is concerned, the authorities cited by the petitioner''s counsel are distinguishable. In Sunehra Singh''s case, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not at an considered. In Sri Lai''s case the provisions of Sections 177 and 179 were considered and it was held that section 179 Cr.P.C. is not attracted because consequence of kidnapping was not essential part of offence of kidnapping. In Jagan Nath''s case, the provisions of Sections 177, 179 and 220 Cr.P.C. were considered. In all these cases, the provisions of sections 180 and 235 Cr.P.C. were not considered. IllustrationC to Section 180 Cr.P.C. is a pointer in this matter. Kidnapping and concealment of a kidnapped person are two distinct offences independent of one another. These offences may be committed at one place or may be committed at different places. Notwithstanding this, the offence of kidnapping having taken place at point ''A'' and concealment having taken place at point ''B'', according to this illustration, they could both be tried at either of the places. In Parshottam Dass v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1961 SC 1589 it is held that Sections 234, 235, 236 and 239 Cr.P.C. may provide exceptions to section 177 Cr.P.C. In the circumstances of this case, in my opinion, the alleged kidnapping and the alleged rape are so related to one another that they can be tried either at Ambala or Delhi.

Considering the evidence collected so far against the petitioner, bail is declined.