Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gagan Deep Singh @ Gagan vs State Of Haryana on 2 February, 2012
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
CRM-M-39332 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-39332 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: February 02, 2012
Gagan Deep Singh @ Gagan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
AND
CRM-M-1296 of 2012 (O&M)
Jagroop Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. S.S. Gill, Advocate and
Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Siddharath Sarup, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajan Gupta, J.
This order shall dispose of above mentioned two petitions filed on behalf of accused Gagan Deep Singh @ Gagan and Jagroop Singh, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioners under Sections 120-B, 294, 376, 506 IPC and Sections 67-A, 67-B, 67-C and 68 of I.T. Act, at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal, vide FIR No.295 dated 14th May, 2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that petitioners have no role to play in the commission of crime. There is no allegation of rape against them. Similarly placed accused have been granted the concession of bail by this court in Crl. Misc. No. M-31831 CRM-M-39332 of 2011 2 of 2011. Thus, petitioners are entitled to same concession.
Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the prayer. He has submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioners. According to him, the prosecutrix, whose statement was recorded in camera, clearly implicated the petitioners. According to him, accused Gagandeep Singh alias Gagan and Jagroop Singh (petitioners herein), actively participated in the crime alongwith accused Gurlal. They are, thus, not entitled to concession of bail. He sought permission of the court to place on record certified copies of the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded so far. The prayer was accepted and statements were taken on record.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
Complaint was lodged by Narender Singh, father of the prosecutrix, who alleged that accused Gurlal had prepared an obscene movie of his daughter and uploaded it on the internet. By using the same, he used to harass her. The investigation ensued. The prosecutrix made a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Accused Gurlal was later arrested who made his disclosure statement that he alongwith his friend Gagandeep Singh and his friend Jagroop Singh prepared an obscene MMS and raped the prosecutrix. The same was later uploaded by co-accused on the internet and CDs thereof were also prepared. Car of Gagandeep Singh was used in the commission of crime. During the course of trial prosecutrix stepped into the witness-box and narrated the whole story. She stated that Gurlal had prepared a morphed video film showing her face with the help of computer. He later started harassing CRM-M-39332 of 2011 3 her and threatened that in case she did not accompany him, he would display the film on the internet. On the fateful day, she was taken in a white Alto car alongwith two friends of Gurlal to a village. While Gagandeep drove the car, Jagroop Singh sat beside him. They stopped the car under a tree. Thereafter some intoxicating substance was administered to her in a glass of water. When she regained consciousness, she found that she was nude. Accused Gagandeep Singh was holding a camera and making a video. At that time accused Gurlal had disclosed that he had raped her and prepared a video of the act. The prosecutrix did not disclose the incident to any one due to shame. However, due to continuous harassment, she revealed the episode to her family, whereafter matter was reported to the police. Investigation ensued and the accused were taken in custody.
Keeping in view the seriousness of offence and gravity of accusations, I am of the considered view that petitioner are not entitled to concession of bail pending trial. As regards contention of parity with co-accused Pardeep and Bachhitar Singh, it is evident that the same is without any merit. The present petitioners accompanied accused Gurlal and actively participated in the commission of crime. Their plea for grant of bail is, thus, without any merit. Both the petitions are hereby dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE February 02, 2012 'rajpal'