Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2226 (PNJ)

Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab

2009-12-22

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J. - This petition, under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code, for the grant of regular bail, has been filed by the petitioner, in case FIR No. 141 dated 24.10.2008, under Section 148, 376 and 365 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Mehta, District Amritsar. 2. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 3. The Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accused-petitioner has been in custody since 13.09.2008. He has further submitted that earlier the petitioner was arrested for the offences, under Sections 148 and 365 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, for which he was granted bail. He has further submitted that later on, the offence, under Section 376 Indian Penal Code was added and he was arrested. He has further submitted that, as per the allegations, the prosecutrix was abducted by the petitioner and his co-accused on 24.10.2008 and was got freed from their clutches on 21.11.2008. He has further submitted that further allegations against the accused-petitioner, are that he committed rape with her, during this period. He has further submitted that earlier the prosecutrix was married with the petitioner, and she got ex parte decree of divorce. He has further, submitted that the petitioner did not know about the ex parte decree of divorce. He has further submitted that subsequent thereto, the petitioner executed power of attorney, in favour of the prosecutrix. He has further submitted that the question of committing rape, with the prosecutrix, by the petitioner, did not at all arise. 4. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent-State, has submitted that the accused-petitioner committed a very heinous crime, and, as such, he is not entitled to the grant of bail. 5. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case, in which the bail, should be granted to the accused petitioner, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. There are specific allegations, against the accused-petitioner, that when the prosecutrix alongwith her daughter was going to attend the proceedings, in a petition under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, she (prosecutrix) was abducted by the petitioner and his son Hardeep Singh, from the previous marriage, alongwith Sukho. There are specific allegations, against the accused-petitioner, that when the prosecutrix alongwith her daughter was going to attend the proceedings, in a petition under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, she (prosecutrix) was abducted by the petitioner and his son Hardeep Singh, from the previous marriage, alongwith Sukho. There are also specific allegations, against the accused-petitioner that he (accused-petitioner) committed rape with the prosecutrix against her will and without her consent. The co-accused of the present accused-petitioner, as is evident from the order dated 19.10.2009, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, are still absconding. The accused- petitioner allegedly committed a very heinous crime. Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations; heinous and grave nature of the offences; the attending circumstances, in which the alleged offences were committed; and the factum that the possibility of abscondance of the accused, tampering with the evidence, or influencing the witnesses, in case, released on bail, could not be ruled out, no ground, whatsoever, is made out, for the acceptance of Criminal Misc. No. M-34153 of 2009, and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-34153 of 2009, is dismissed. 7. Any observation made, in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. Petition dismissed.