Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 January, 2012
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 488 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: January 6, 2012.
Ravinder Singh.
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Punjab.
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Divjyot Singh Sandhu,
Advocate, for the petitioner.
*****
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.184 dated 19.08.2008 under Section 363/376/34 IPC and Section 67 of Information and Technology Act, 2000, registered at police station Bholath, district Kapurthala.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala dismissing anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner.
CRM No.M-488 of 2012 2
Briefly stated, the present FIR has been registered on 19.08.2008 on the statement of prosecutrix on the allegations that she is aged about 16 years and student of class IX of SPS Khalsa Senior Secondary School, Begowal. Her mother is blind. Her father is handicapped from both the legs. She left her house and was standing at Tahli Chowk Begowal for arrival of the bus when a car stopped near her. Her neighbour, namely, Gobinderpreet alighted from the car and he immediately kept a piece of cloth on her mouth and kidnapped her and made her to sit in the car. The car was being driven by the present petitioner-accused. He was known to the prosecutrix as he was friend of Gobinderpreet, her neighbour. Some medicines were also administered to the prosecutrix, whereupon she felt like sleeping. She was taken to a room, where both of them committed rape upon her turn by turn. Thereafter, she was dropped at the bus stop of Akbarpur. Before alighting from the car co-accused, Gobinderpreet showed her a sex film in his mobile phone and raised threat to her that if she would tell anybody then the said CD would be circulated to general public. Threat was again raised to circulate the said CD if she fails to meet their demand of having sex with them. However, she did not agree and later on her CD was circulated on mobiles and hence, she narrated the occurrence to her parents. Petitioner has been absconding and he has been declared proclaimed offender.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that he had gone abroad and that he has filed the present petition after returning from abroad. He has also taken the plea that affidavits were sworn by the prosecutrix and her father in October, 2008, Annexures P2 and CRM No.M-488 of 2012 3 P3 that no offence was committed by the present petitioner-accused. He has also contended that there is delay in lodging the FIR. He has also placed reliance upon a decision rendered by this Court on 15.02.2011, in Criminal Misc. No.M-25143 of 2010 (Surinder @Nitu v. State of Haryana and another).
Allegations against the present petitioner are serious in nature. Delay has been fully explained by the prosecutrix in her statement.
Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extra- ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner- accused.
Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Ravinder Singh is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) January 6, 2012. JUDGE 'om'