High CourtsSingle Bench

Sonu vs State Of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 10 July 2020 · Citation: (2020) 07 P&H CK 0079

HON’BLE JUDGES
Amol Rattan Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 164, 173, 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376, 506
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 16563 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 351 words

Amol Rattan Singh, J

All cases listed today have been taken up for hearing by way of video conferencing because of the situation existing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks the concession of 'regular bail' under the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C., upon FIR No.360, dated 07.07.2019,

having been registered at Police Station Meham, District Rohtak, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506

of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly, submits that though the victim was only alleged to be 16 years old as per the FIR, even as per the report

under Section 173 Cr.P.C., she was more than 20 years of age on the date of alleged occurrence.

Upon query to Mr. Chahar, learned DAG, Haryana, he naturally does not deny that fact and further submits, upon query of this court (on account of

the fact that there was a break in the online communication with learned counsel for the petitioner in between), that the girl, in her first statement

under Section 164 Cr.P.C., had stated that she had left home of her own accord but thereafter, on another complaint having been made by her mother

on August, 2019 (after three weeks), her second statement under the same provision was recorded, in which she stated that she had been gang raped

by four persons but in the investigation conducted, three persons were found to be innocent on the basis of their mobile phone locations, with therefore

only the petitioner arraigned as an accused in the said report.

The petitioner is stated to have been in custody since August 4, 2019.

Keeping in view the aforesaid period of custody as also the discrepancy in the statements of the alleged victim, before a Magistrate on each occasion,

without making any comment on the actual merits of the case, it is considered appropriate to admit the petitioner to bail.

Consequently, upon him furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail

during the period of the trial.