Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal @ Maddi vs State Of Haryana on 9 January, 2023
CRM-M-22637-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
209 CRM-M-22637-2022
Date of Decision: 09.01.2023
Satpal @ Maddi ......... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ......... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr.Manoj Pundir, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner, through instant petition under Section 439
Cr.P.C., is seeking regular bail in FIR No. 228 dated 13.09.2021 under
Sections 6 and 18 of POCSO Act, 2012 (Sections 376 (3) and 506 of IPC
were added later on), registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar, District
Yamuna Nagar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the
petitioner is in custody since 14.09.2021. The petitioner has been charged
under Section 6 of POCSO Act as well as 376(3) of IPC. Section 6 of
POCSO Act and 376(3) of IPC are pari materia and require aggrevated
penetrative sexual assault whereas statement of prosecutrix as well as
medical record is belying story of the prosecution. The petitioner was
working as labourer with the complainant and just to get rid of wages of
the petitioner, the complainant has implicated the petitioner. The petitioner
is not involved in any other offence. The petitioner is 32 years old man and
1 of 4
he has been wrongly implicated in the commission of alleged offence. The
petitioner is not involved in any other FIR. The petitioner is permanent
resident of District Yamuna Nagar and staying with family members. The
petitioner has deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of flee from
justice.
3. Learned State Counsel submits that police report has already
been filed and charges stand framed. He further submits that all the
prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the next date before
the trial Court is 22.02.2023 for defence evidence. The petitioner is
involved in the commission of grave offence, thus, no leniency is warranted
and release of petitioner would hamper the trial.
5. A two judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender
Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing
conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed:
"6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The
statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd
of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners.
Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be
required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable
offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven
years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also
would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being
inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it
certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on
the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact
arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of
liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there
can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are
conceptually opposite to each other."
6. Intent of arrest and reason of denial of bail is to:
2 of 4
i) Secure the appearance of the accused at the time of
trial;
ii) Allay possibility of repeating of offence &
jeopardising own life on account of grim prospect of
being convicted;
iii) Avoid possibility of tampering of evidence and
security of witnesses who may be pressurised or
maltreated.
7. A person who seeks to be liberated must take judgment and
serve sentence in the event of his conviction. The nature of the crime
charged, severity of punishment prescribed, prime facie available
evidences, history & background of the accused may indicate that any
amount of bond and surety is not going to secure presence of accused, at
the time of conviction. Detention or arrest not only deprives a person from
his fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed by article 21 but also
freedom guaranteed by article 19(1) of our Constitution.
8. Keeping in mind:
i) The Petitioner is in custody since 14.09.2021;
ii) Police report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. stands filed,
charges stand framed;
iii) All the prosecution witnesses have already been examined;
iv) The prosecutrix has not supported the case of the
prosecution and even though, she had disclosed the
incident;
v) The medical reports do not support version of the
prosecution rather support version of the victim before trial
3 of 4
Court.
vi) From the statement of prosecutrix before trial Court as well
as the medical reports, it comes out that prima facie it is not
a case of offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act and 376
(3) of IPC;
vii) Twin stringent conditions of bail prescribed under special
statutes like PMLA, UAPA, NDPS Act, Companies Act are
not applicable in the case in hand;
viii) The Petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case;
xi) The Petitioner is permanent resident of District Yamuna
Nagar and staying with family members;
x) Prosecution has not led any convincing/plausible
documentary or oral evidence indicating possibility of
Petitioner being flee from justice or tempering the evidences
or winning over/threatening the witnesses;
this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition
deserves to allowed and accordingly allowed. The petitioner is ordered to
be released on bail subject to conditions as may be imposed by trial
Court/illaqa/Duty Magistrate concerned.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
09.01.2023
anju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
