Suresh Kumar @ Pappi vs State Of Punjab

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No.239 dated 30.8.2020 under Sections 376/511/342/120-B IPC and Sections 12 & 18 of POCSO Act at Police Station Samana, District Patiala.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of the prosecutrix, aged about 15 years, wherein it is alleged that she resides with her aunt (bua) Parwinder Kaur and that another of her aunt (mami) namely Ajit Kaur also resides with them. Since her mama (maternal uncle) Amrik Singh is a drunkard, therefore, her mami Ajit Kaur frequently visited Baba ji. It is alleged that one lady had recommended to her maternal aunt that Baba Harjinder Singh could treat and get rid of all her miseries and on account of which complainant's mami got acquainted with Baba Harjinder. It is alleged that Baba Harjinder asked her mami to get some unmarried girl so as to appease "Devi Mata". Being taken in by the said representation, her aunt agreed to take the complainant to said Baba. Baba Harjinder Singh informed that he along with Darshan Singh, ex-Sarpanch, would pick them up in a car. Consequently, the complainant, her bua (paternal aunt) Parwinder Kaur and her mami (maternal aunt) went with them to Kissan Feed Factory where the owner of the factory namely Suresh @ Pappi was also present and the said three persons took them inside and closed the door of the factory. It is alleged that Darshan Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, Baba Harjinder Singh, Nachhattar Singh and Davinderpal Singh took the complainant inside a room wherein one unknown person, who was being addressed as Baba ji was present. The said Baba sent Darshan Singh and Harjinder Singh out of the room and bolted the room from inside and asked the complainant to take off her shirt and upon her refusal, forcibly took off her shirt and also the trouser and started touching her in an obscene manner and attempted to establish physical relations with her. The complainant however, pushed the Baba aside and ran out of the room. It is alleged that thereafter by making an excuse, they went away from the factory. Subsequently, they came to know the name of said Baba as Akram Khan.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instance case and that in any case even if the allegations as levelled in the FIR are taken to be correct, still no overt act as regards any molestation or any alleged attempt to rape is attributed to the petitioner and that the only role attributed to the petitioner is that when the prosecutrix and others reached the factory permises of the petitioner, he offered cold drinks to them which they refused to have. It is further submitted that it is the Baba Akram Khan who is alleged to have made an attempt to commit rape upon the prosecutrix and not the petitioner.

Opposing the petition, the learned State Counsel has submitted that since the entire occurrence had taken place in the factory premises of the petitioner, his complicity in the entire incident is clearly evident and as such, he does not deserve the concession of bail. The learned State counsel has, however, submitted that the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last about 6 months and that he is not involved in any other case.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is not stated to have made any attempt to molest the victim or to make any attempt to outrage her modesty. In any case, since the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 6 months, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose.

The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.