Sandeep vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 1905 P&H

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH
122+226
                                 CRM-M-4659-2022 (O&M)
                                 Decided on : 22.03.2022

Sandeep
                                                              . . . Petitioner(s)
                                          Versus
State of Punjab
                                                            . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

                            (Through Video Conferencing)

PRESENT: Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate
         for the petitioner(s).

              Ms. Ishneet Kaur, DAG, Punjab.

                                          ****

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (Oral)

CRM-5312-2022 Application is allowed and Annexure P-9 (copy of statement)

filed along with the application is taken on record, subject to all just

exceptions.

Main case

This is the second petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for

grant of bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 211, dated 24.12.2020, under

Sections 363, 366-A, 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCO Act, registered at

Police Station Tibba, District Ludhiana (annexed as Annexure P-1).

Earlier petition filed by the petitioner seeking concession of

bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn on 23rd August,

2021 (Annexure P-8).

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that a

false and fabricated case has been planted upon him by the father of the

victim. Infact, the victim was not a minor, as had been alleged in the FIR,

1 of 3

CRM-M-4659-2022 (O&M) -2-

but an adult of 20 years of age on the date when she allegedly went missing.

In support, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the

marriage contract letter of the parties, which has been annexed as Annexure

P-2, wherein, the victim had herself stated that she was 20 years old.

Learned counsel still further submits that the Aadhar Card of the victim,

wherein, her date of birth is shown as 11.10.2006, could not be said to be a

sufficient proof of her age, as the victim had conceded during her deposition

before the trial Court that she did not remember as to who had accompanied

her at the time of preparing the Aadhar Card and had also stated that she had

not got her Aadhar Card prepared. He further submits that the victim was

not enticed away by the petitioner, as had been alleged, but had

accompanied the petitioner of her own accord and thereafter, solemnized

marriage with him. Learned counsel further submits that since both the

material witnesses i.e. the victim as well as her father i.e. the complainant

stand examined before the trial Court, therefore, his further incarceration in

the circumstances would not serve any useful purpose, as he has now been

in custody since 23rd February, 2021.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed

reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Nishan Singh

alias Gurjant Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2019(3) Law Herald 2746 and

Alamelu and another vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, 2011, AIR

(SC) 715.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer

and submissions made by the counsel opposite, submits that the victim

reiterated the allegations levelled against the petitioner u/s 164 Cr.P.C.

while stepping into the witness-box and supported the case of the

prosecution in its entirety. Further submits that even the complainant had

2 of 3

CRM-M-4659-2022 (O&M) -3-

supported the case of the prosecution. She still further submits that the

petitioner after putting the minor victim under threat enticed her away to his

native village in Uttar Pradesh and solemnized marriage with her.

Learned State counsel still further submits that now that only

formal witnesses remain to be examined and hence, the trial would not take

much time to conclude.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

relevant material on record including the deposition of both the material

witnesses, which have been annexed with the paper-book.

Prima facie, there are serious and specific allegations levelled

against the petitioner in the FIR in question, to the effect that after enticing

away the victim, aged 14-15 years, he solemnized marriage with her and

also violated her person. The submissions made by the learned counsel qua

the victim not being a minor, but an adult would be a matter to be

adjudicated upon during trial. This Court, thus, does not deem it a fit case

to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner, more so, since the trial is

nearing conclusion.

Dismissed. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not

be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE March 22, 2022 J.Ram

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3