Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 408 (PNJ)

Parshant Pathak Alias Micky v. State Of Punjab

2002-04-12

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. The petitioner-accused seeks bail in case bearing FIR No. 262 dated 2.9.2001 registered under Sections 366, 368, 376, 506, 120-B, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur. 2. The present case was registered on the statement of prosecutrix (name withheld). She is unmarried. Her elder sister is married in Village Purkian, District Hoshiarpur. On 4.8.2001, the prosecutrix had gone to Village Purkian, Hoshiarpur in order to tie Rakhi to the son of her sister. After tying the Rakhi, she started her return journey to her village. While she was standing on the Bye-pass near Phaglana Chowk at about 3.30 p.m. a Maruti van stopped there. It was driven by a Sikh boy of 35-40 years. Rajinder Kumar, Balwinder Thakur alias Sonu and one more boy named Micky alighted from the van. Rajinder Kumar was holding a pistol like object in his hand. Rajinder Kumar scared her with that object. She tried to raise alarm but Balwinder Thakur alias Sonu and Micky gagged her mouth with a piece of cloth and forcibly put her in the van. The van was taken to Chandigarh. She was locked in a room. Thereafter, Rajinder Kumar remained with her while his co-accused left that place. She had been taken by Rajinder Kumar and other accused in order to forcibly marry her with him. Bhajno and Dharam Singh, mother and father of Rajinder had also visited her in the room where she was confined. They forcibly put Chura in her hands though she never wanted to marry Rajinder Kumar as he was already married and was having four children. Rajinder Kumar kept on raping the prosecutrix in that room. After some days she escaped from there and reached her home. She narrated the entire incident to her mother, father, sister and other members of the family. Thereafter her statement was recorded which led to the registration of the present case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing for his bail made reference to Daily Diary Report No. 23 dated 31.8.2001 which was recorded in Police Post, Maloya wherein it was mentioned that on 31.8.2001 at 7.30 p.m. in the fields of Village Maloya, prosecutrix resident of Village Phuglana near Matiana, District Hoshiarpur and a boy of the same village named Rajinder were found. After their verification was got done in the presence of Village Panchayat, the prosecutrix was handed over to her father and Rajinder to her mother-Harbhajan Kaur. According to the counsel for the petitioner this is the information earlier in point of time which revealed that prosecutrix had been roaming about with Rajinder Kumar of her own free will. It was further submitted that the prosecutrix is major and was aged 23 to 24 years when report dated 31.8.2001 was registered with Police Post, Maloya, Chandigarh. 4. Another circumstance which was highlighted by him is that at no stage father of the prosecutrix lodged any report with regard to the missing of the prosecutrix which is unexplainable circumstance because she is stated to have been kidnapped on 4.8.2001 while her father or any other member of her family never reported about this incident to any police authority and it is only after she was recovered, that the present concocted story came to the recorded on 2.9.2001. With the above background it was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that name of petitioner was introduced in the report lodged on 2.9.2001 and in her statement which was recorded for the first time under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 4.9.2001 and these circumstances should not be made the basis to deny the concession of bail to the petitioner. 5. Learned State counsel primarily opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the basis of gravity of the charge against him. 6. The merits of the respective stand of the parties have to be adjudicated upon during the trial of the case. For the adjudication of the bail application the factual position as spelled out above can not be ignored because it has not been disputed on behalf of the State. Further Balwinder Thakur alias Sonu, whose name appeared in the report lodged by the prosecutrix had already been extended the benefit of bail on 2.11.2001 by this Court (Honble Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta) in Criminal Misc. No. 40903-M of 2001. Raj Kumar another accused had also been extended the benefit of bail as per order dated 21.12.2001 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 47055-M of 2001. 7. Justice K.C. Gupta) in Criminal Misc. No. 40903-M of 2001. Raj Kumar another accused had also been extended the benefit of bail as per order dated 21.12.2001 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 47055-M of 2001. 7. Taking into account the totality of circumstances brought on record the application of the petitioner-accused is accepted and it is directed that he shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Judge. Petition allowed.