Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 September, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-19145 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. M-19145 of 2014
Date of Decision:-6.9.2014
Gurdeep Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Manmohan Singh Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajat Bansal, AAG Punjab for the State.
Ms.Deipa Asdhir Dubey, Advocate for the complainant.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Tersely, the facts & material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for the grant of concession of regular bail and emanating from the the record, are that the petitioner (main accused) was working as a property dealer, whereas the prosecutrix (name intentionally withheld), daughter of complainant Rani, widow of Vipin Kumar (for brevity "the complainant"), was working in his office at a monthly salary of ` 4000/-. However, he started misbehaving and she left her job.
2. Sequelly, the complainant claimed that on 21.8.2013, she and her daughter (prosecutrix) had gone to meet her elder daughter Meenakshi at House No.8, Gurjepal Nagar, Jalandhar. Meanwhile, the petitioner followed them along with 3-4 other persons and came there at about 9.30 PM. They kidnapped, forcibly took the prosecutrix and ran away in their vehicle, bearing registration No.PB-08-AD-8008. The matter was reported to the police. Thereafter, in the wake of statement of complainant, a criminal ARVIND SHARMA 2014.09.08 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-19145 of 2014 2 case was registered against the petitioner and his other co-accused, vide FIR No.127 dated 22.8.2013 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 365 and 366 IPC (the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC was later on added) by the police of Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar.
2. Having exercised his right of bail and remained unsuccessful before Additional Sessions Judge, now the petitioner has preferred the present petition for regular bail in the indicated criminal case in this Court.
3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition for regular bail in this context.
5. Ex facie, the arguments of learned counsel that the prosecutrix herself filed the protection petition, bearing CRM No. M-28146 of 2013 (Annexure P4) & private criminal complaint dated 4.9.2013 (Annexure P7), which falsify the prosecution version and since the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant & prosecutrix in this case, so, he is entitled to the concession of regular bail, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
6. As is evident from the record that the complainant has given cogent version that petitioner and his other co-accused, have kidnapped, forcibly took the prosecutrix and ran away in their pointed vehicle. Not only that, during the course of investigation and narrating the tale of her woe, the prosecutrix made her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC before the Magistrate, which, in substance, is as under:-
ARVIND SHARMA2014.09.08 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-19145 of 2014 3
"On 21.8.13, I along with my mother went to my sister's home at Cool Road and at that time, I was roaming around with my mother. There, I saw Gurdip Singh, coming in his car and he asked me to listen to him and when I went near him, then he forcefully pulled me into his car. On this, myself and my mother yelled a lot, then he tied my mouth and three of his friends joined in the car. One of them is Prabjot. I am not aware of the names of other two, then Gurdip Singh stayed there and the other three took me to a place named Kala Bakra and Gurdip Singh came there lateron. After staying there for a night, they took me to Chandigarh, where, they met with an Advocate and I am not aware of him as I was sitting in the car. Then, they took me in the car and reached Dehradoon in the evening time. There, all of them made sexual relations with me. Next day except Gurdip, remaining three left that place. Gurdeep Singh continuously made sexual relation with me and he also threatened me that he will kill my family members. After that, Prabjot brought with him new and unknown boys and they used to threat me to testify that Gurdip Singh did not abduct me, but I joined them willingly. They asked me to state that her mother is keeping an eye on her property and she want her to get married of her choice. 1-2 week prior thereto, they brought her to the court, so that I could testify in her favour, but unfortunately, testimony could not be done. On the way back Babbu, who is also a partner of Gurdip, drove me to Adampur. On the way, Gurdip also joined us in the car, therein Babbu and all other molested me. Then, they took me to Dehradoon. Prabjot too joined us. Then Prabjot and other boys came back. Then yesterday morning i.e. 13.9.13 I came to my home, as I was having fever on 12.9.13, Gurdip went to take medicine for me and at that time I ran away from there.
Q. Do you want to state anything else ?
A. Prabjot was instigating everybody and was threatening me, I want my home to be safe and myself too stay safe and what they have done they shall be punished for it, there is nothing else I want to say."
7. Meaning thereby, very direct & serious allegations of heinous and grave offences of kidnapping & repeatedly committing gang rape on the prosecutrix, are assigned to the petitioner. He is the main accused and his name is duly mentioned in the initial complaint of the complainant, which formed the basis of FIR (Annexure P1) and the indicated statement of the prosecutrix. Likewise, the mere fact of filing the protection petition (Annexure P4) and private criminal complaint (Annexure P7) by the prosecutrix, ipso facto, is not a ground, muchless cogent, to grant the benefit ARVIND SHARMA 2014.09.08 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-19145 of 2014 4 of bail to the petitioner in such a case of kidnapping & repeated gang rape. On the contrary, it corroborates the statement of prosecutrix that the accused forcibly brought her to Chandigarh. Therefore, possibility to manage the filing of pointed protection petition and private complaint by the petitioner, cannot be ruled out at this stage. Moreover, at the most, the validity, genuineness or otherwise the admissibility & acceptability of such documents, can only be considered at the final conclusion of the trial and the same cannot be pressed into service at this stage of granting bail, in such a case of heinous offences, as contrary urged on behalf of the petitioner.
8. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, oozing out of the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for regular bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
10. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on the merits of the case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail only in this relevant connection.
6.9.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
ARVIND SHARMA
2014.09.08 17:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh