Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Satpal vs State Of Haryana on 27 January, 2016

Author: Jitendra Chauhan

Bench: Jitendra Chauhan

                    CRM No.M-43909 of 2015                                    1

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                         CHANDIGARH

                                                        CRM No.M-43909 of 2015
                                                        Date of decision: 27.01.2016

                    Satpal
                                                                                   ...Petitioner

                                          Versus

                    State of Haryana
                                                                                  ...Respondent

                    CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

                    Present:        Mr. S. S. Dinarpur, Advocate
                                    for the petitioner.

                                    Mr. Sourabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana
                                    assisted by HC Sunny.

                                                 ****

                    Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)

In this third petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought regular bail in case FIR No.45, dated 11.02.2013, registered under Sections 376B/376/342/292/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 417/292-A IPC & 66-A of the Information of Technology Act, 2000 and 4/6/14 of POSCO Act, at Police Station Sadar, District Rohtak.

It is contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further states that there is no allegation of rape against the petitioner. ASHOK KUMAR 2016.01.29 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM No.M-43909 of 2015 2

On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the bail and refers to the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix-Lalita, wherein specific allegation of rape has been levelled against the petitioner.

Photocopy of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix is taken on record as Mark 'A'.

Heard.

Considering the role of the petitioner, nature and gravity of the offence, no case is made out for bail at this stage.

Dismissed.




                    27.01.2016                                  (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
                    ashok                                              JUDGE




ASHOK KUMAR
2016.01.29 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document