Munish Kumar Alias Manu vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 1415 P&H

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

(Sr. No. 206)                                     CRM-M No. 18088 of 2022
                                                  Date of decision : 23.01.2023

Munish Kumar @ Manu
                                                                    .....Petitioner

                       Versus

State of Punjab
                                                                  .....Respondent



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL


Present :       Mr. Gursimran Singh Madaan, Advocate for the petitioner.
                Mr. A.P.S. Tung, DAG, Punjab.
                              ***

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

Through the present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. the

petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.0010 dated 11.01.2022 registered

under Section 376 IPC at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar.

Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that when the

prosecutrix was waiting to board a bus at the Jalandhar Bus Stop to go to

Chandigarh, the petitioner, who was already known to her, initially offered

and then, on her acceptance, gave her a lift to Chandigarh. However, on the

way he started to molest her but when such act on his part was responded to

by the prosecutrix by slapping him, he retaliated by beating her on her head

with an iron rod and then by raping her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

has been falsely embroiled in this case because the petitioner and the

1 of 3

CRM-M No. 18088 of 2022 [2]

prosecutrix were in a consensual relationship which had turned sour; there is

40 days delay in lodging of the FIR in question; there is no medical evidence

to support the prosecution's case; the complainant is undergoing psychiatric

treatment and therefore on that count as well the allegations made by her are

doubtful; the complainant's brother has also stated before the police that the

version given by the complainant be first verified before any action is taken

against the petitioner; the allegations in the FIR are absolutely vague and

contradictory as in the same no specific names are forthcoming; the

complainant alleges beatings by the petitioner but there is no medical

evidence to support such allegations and that the petitioner is also ready and

willing to join and cooperate with the investigation.

Learned State counsel opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to

the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is alleged to have assaulted

and raped the prosecutrix who is a qualified nurse in a hospital at Panchkula;

the prosecutrix's medical report clearly shows an injury on her head; samples

from the prosecutrix's person have been sent for forensic examination; the

petitioner on being asked for blood samples for DNA analysis has refused to

do so and that the petitioner is also involved in another case of fraud and

rape.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and with their

able assistance the record of the case has also been perused.

The prosecutrix who is a 25 year old divorcée is presently

serving as a qualified nurse in a hospital at Panchkula. The petitioner who

was known to the prosecutrix, while giving her a lift in his car from Jalandhar

2 of 3

CRM-M No. 18088 of 2022 [3]

to Chandigarh is alleged to have initially molested her and when such

molestation was responded to with a slap, he is further alleged to have

assaulted her with an iron rod and then raped her.

The allegations against the petitioner are serious; the medical

evidence shown to this Court clearly reveals an injury on the prosecutrix's

head; the weapon allegedly used by the petitioner to inflict the injury on the

prosecutrix's head is still to be recovered; earlier, the petitioner was also

prosecuted for having raped another lady and a perusal of the judgment of the

trial court in that case shows that he compromised the matter with the

prosecutrix therein on the basis whereof he earned an acquittal; thus, his

antecedents are not found to be clean; he has also refused to cooperate with

the investigation by refusing to give his blood samples for DNA analysis and

that the investigation in the case is still underway.

In the light of the above, the petitioner does not deserve to be

granted the concession of anticipatory bail.

Dismissed.

It is clarified that the above observations have been made only

for the limited purpose of deciding the present anticipatory bail application

and the same would not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the

merits of the case.

23.01.2023                                          ( DEEPAK SIBAL )
sunil yadav                                             JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned :         Yes / No
Whether reportable            :     Yes / No




                                  3 of 3