Sukhvindra Singh vs State And Others

Manoj Kumar Garg, J

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 148/2021 of Police Station Talwara, District Hanumangarh for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5/6(L) of POCSO Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., no allegation for committing rape has been levelled against the accused- petitioner but later on, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix stated that the accused-petitioner committed rape upon her. Counsel further submits that prosecutrix was as major lady and if anything happened with the prosecutrix, that was with the consent of the prosecutrix. Challan of the case has already been presented and no investigation is pending. The accused-petitioner is behind the bars and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded. Therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Sukhvindra Singh S/o Shri Preetam Singh, shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.148/2021 of Police Station Talwara, District Hanumangarh provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.