Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1802 (PNJ)

Kuldeep Kumar @ Goldy v. State Of Punjab

2010-05-27

SHAM SUNDER

body2010
Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the petitioner, for the grant of regular bail, in case FIR No. 264 dated 28.10.2007, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 494 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station City Rajpura District Patiala. 2. I have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 3. The Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 19.04.2009. He has further submitted that this is a ease of run-away marriage. He has further submitted that the prosecutrix herself accompanied the accused-petitioner and was not enticed away by him. He has further submitted that even the marriage was registered. He has further submitted that a son was bora out of this wedlock, but at their back, the mother of the prosecutrix, lodged the report. He has further submitted that when the accused-petitioner was arrested alongwith the prosecutrix, her (prosecutrix) statement Ex. P-4 was recorded, wherein she stated that she went alongwith the petitioner of her own accord. He has further submitted that even the prosecutrix was examined in the Court and during the course of cross- examination, she stated that she went alongwith the petitioner of her own accord and he did not commit rape with her. 4. The Counsel for the respondent-State does not dispute the factual position depicted above. He has, however, submitted that, the prosecutrix was 17-1/2 years of age at the time occurrence. 5. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contestants raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case, in which bail should be granted, to the petitioner, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. As per the statement, Ex. P-4, of the prosecutrix, and the statement made in the Court, she did not state that she was enticed away by the accused-petitioner. Since she went alongwith the petitioner of her own accord, it cannot be said that the petitioner allegedly committed the offence, punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused has been in custody since 19.04.2009 and the conclusion of the trial, shall take a long time. Since she went alongwith the petitioner of her own accord, it cannot be said that the petitioner allegedly committed the offence, punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused has been in custody since 19.04.2009 and the conclusion of the trial, shall take a long time. There is nothing, on record, to show that the accused- petitioner will abscond tamper with the evidence, or influence the witnesses, in case, released on bail. No useful purpose shall be served by keeping the accused in custody, any longer. 6. Bail to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate, Patiala. 7. Disposed of.