Punjab-Haryana High Court
Crm-M-36865-2013 (O&M) vs State Of Punjab on 17 February, 2014
CRM-M-36865-2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. CRM-M-36865-2013 (O&M)
Gagandeep Singh @ Gurdeep Singh @ Gurpreet Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
2. CRM-M-36867-2013
Gurdev Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
3. CRM-M-36874-2013
Sarabjit @ Sabi
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
4. CRM-M-37157-2013
Vipin Kumar
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
Date of decision: 17.2.2014
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
PRESENT: Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner (s)
(in CRMs-M-36865, 36867 and 36874-2013).
Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner in (CRM-M-37157-2013).
Ms. Shivali, AAG, Punjab.
Kataria Rishu
2014.02.19 14:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-36865-2013 -2-
R.P. NAGRATH, J.
By this common order, a bunch of four petitions bearing CRMs-36865, 36867, 36874 and 37157 of 2013 are being disposed of as the same arise out of the same FIR. Prayer in all these petitions filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 193 dated 6.7.2013 registered under Section 363/366 IPC (Section 376 IPC added later on) at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CRM-M-36865-2013.
2. The FIR was registered on 6.7.2013, on the statement of father of the prosecutrix. It was stated that the prosecutrix had gone for morning walk on 5.7.2013 at about 5.00 a.m. as usual. The girl had not returned home and her family had been searching for her. At about 7.21 a.m. the complainant received a phone calls on his mobile phone from mobile number 96460-59025. The prosecutrix told her father that she would be killed by the persons and prayed for her safety. The complainant learnt that these calls were made from mobile number of Gagandeep Singh @ Gurdeep Singh @ Gurpreet Singh petitioner in CRM-M-36865-2013 and other mobile number was belonged to Sarabjit @ Sabi-petitioner in CRM-M-36874-2013.
3. Rest of the story as stated in the FIR is reproduced as under:
".......Today, on 6.7.2013, a telephone was received from cell phone No. 90413-03085 on cell phone No. 99888-32211 that if the girl is wanted to be returned, then Rs. Five Lacs should be paid. Whereas from this phone, call is also made at telephone No. 97793- Kataria Rishu 2014.02.19 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36865-2013 -3- 28737 and Ex-Sarpanch Surinder Singh Takhar has made a call at telephone No. 96460-59025. All the family members of the abovesaid Gagandeep have also committed mistakes earlier and asked for written apologies in the presence of Panchayat on letter pad. I have strong belief that Gagandeep and Sarabjit @ Sabi and their accomplices are involved in the kidnapping of my daughter..........."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that it has become habit of this family to involve innocent persons and to blackmail them. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the judgment dated 17.7.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in FIR No. 323 dated 5.12.2012 under Sections 363/366/376/511 IPC at Police Station City Nakodar, Jalandhar registered against one Akshay Kumar @ Arun on the allegation of kidnapping and attempt to rape the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix did not support the version and ultimately Akshay was acquitted.
5. Another FIR No. 46 dated 14.3.2011 under Section 458/376/323/511/34 IPC was recorded by the cousin sister of the prosecutrix against three persons and that girl also did not support the prosecution case having turned hostile and those persons were also acquitted of the charges vide judgment dated 6.7.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.
6. What had happened in those FIRs cannot be given undue weightage at this stage. It deserves to be observed that no one can take Kataria Rishu 2014.02.19 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36865-2013 -4- advantage of the previous incidents to sexually ravage the prosecutrix.
7. The prosecutrix has been examined by the trial Court as PW-2 and subjected to a lengthy cross-examination. She named each one of the petitioner and the actual role played by them. The prosecutrix categorically stated that Vipin Kumar petitioner in CRM-M-37157-2013 made a phone call to her father and demanded a ransom of ` 5 lacs to release her. As per the story, the prosecutrix was able to come out of the captivity of the accused persons after 6-7 days. The testimony of prosecutrix would make it a case of gang rape.
8. It is, however, it is contended that if the prosecutrix was taken to Jammu or stayed at different places, why she did not raise hue and cry. These are the questions which need to be discussed by the trial Court at the final stage.
9. From the above discussion, I find no merit in the instant petitions for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, all the four petitions are dismissed.
February 17, 2014 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
rishu JUDGE
Kataria Rishu
2014.02.19 14:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document