Ram Singh vs State of Haryana

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—This order shall dispose of the present petition filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the benefit of regular bail to the petitioner pending trial in case FIR No. 58 dated 16.3.2014, under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station K.U.K. Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court is of the considered view that even though the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as regards having allegedly committed a heinous crime, yet a case for grant of bail has been made out.

At the first instance, it may be noticed that the FIR in question was registered on the statement of prosecutrix Pooja, daughter of Sushil Kumar who had alleged that on 10.12.2011, she was proceeding to appear in an interview for a post in Marketing and had come to Empire Hotel situated near Kurukshetra University. After the interview, she had hired an Auto Rickshaw. The Auto driver is stated to have disclosed his name as Ajay and had got into conversation with the prosecutrix who disclosed her desire for getting employed. Upon this, the Auto driver had disclosed the name of his friend Ram Singh i.e. the present petitioner and had assured the prosecutrix that Ram Singh would be in a position to get her employed. It was alleged that under such circumstances, prosecutrix had got in touch with the petitioner who had promised to get her employed with ''Goyal Gas Agency''. As per allegation, on 16.1.2012, the present petitioner had informed mother of the prosecutrix that someone else had been employed in the ''Goyal Gas Agency'', but he would get the prosecutrix employed in the University and for which she should approach him on the following Saturday. Further allegation is that on such stated day i.e. Saturday, the prosecutrix met the petitioner at about 10.30/11.00 a.m. and on being informed that she was suffering from headache, she was offered juice as also a tablet and made to sit in his Car. Allegation is that the prosecutrix became unconscious and upon having regained consciousness, she found herself in a vacant Kothi and whereupon Ram Singh, the present petitioner did a wrong act with her. Further alleged that the petitioner threatened her not to disclose the same as he had prepared a video and would disclose the same and would defame her. A perusal of the statement made by the prosecutrix would reveal that thereafter on various occasions, the petitioner having gained the trust of the parents of the prosecutrix, used to visit the house and on finding the prosecutrix alone would ravish her. Towards the end, there is a specific allegation of committing the rape upon the prosecutrix on 14.3.2014.

However, in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded u/s 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is a clear contradiction inasmuch as no physical assault/rape has been alleged as on 16.1.2012. The initial statement of the prosecutrix is at variance with the statement recorded u/s 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A doubt, as such, is cast on the prosecution version.

Secondly, there seems considerable weight in the submission raised on behalf of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the prosecutrix. In this regard, a notice dated 11.3.2014 dispatched from the office of Manju Sharma, Advocate through registered AD post and addressed to Mamta Rani as also the present petitioner has been adverted to and the same having been placed on record at Annexure P3. As per such notice, there was apparently a dispute with regard to a plot measuring 144 sq. yards for which an agreement to sell had been entered into between father of the prosecutrix and Mamta Rani who was stated to be the owner of the plot. Contents of such notice would reveal that a certain sum of money was stated to have been paid to Mamta Rani through the present petitioner. In the light of such notice dated 11.3.2014 sent through counsel, Mamta Rani as also the present petitioner were being called upon to ensure registration of the sale-deed of the plot in question in favour of father of the prosecutrix.

The present FIR had been lodged merely five days thereafter and the prosecutrix is the daughter of Sushil Kumar, on whose instructions, the notice dated 11.3.2014 at Annexure P3 had been issued. It would be apposite to notice that issuance of the notice dated 11.3.2014 finds a mention even in the FIR as also in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded u/s 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Under such peculiar circumstances, false implication of the present petitioner cannot be ruled out.

The petitioner was arrested on 16.3.2014. Investigation in the present case having been completed, challan was presented on 11.4.2014. Trial is still at the initial stage and would take time to conclude.

It is not even the case made out on behalf of the State that the petitioner if granted the benefit of bail would be in a position to hamper the course of trial.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.

Bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

It is, however, clarified that the observations made in this order are confined only as regards consideration of the prayer of the petitioner for bail and would have no bearing on the merits of the case.

Petition disposed of.