Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3290 (PNJ)

Santra v. State Of Haryana

2010-12-08

S.S.SARON

body2010
Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek regular bail in a case registered against them on 28.5.2010 for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the basis of affidavit deposed by the prosecutrix. It is alleged by her that Devender Singh son of Sher Singh (petitioner No. 2) had seduced her and brought her from her house to his house on the pretext of marrying her. He brought the prosecutrix to his house at Loharu about one month ago and had kept her in one room in his house. 2. The prosecutrix told Devender that she would continue staying with him so long as he would keep her comfortably and would not do anything with her forcibly and he would marry her. Devender kept on telling the prosecutrix that he would perform Court marriage with her, but he evaded her and told her that it would take some time and that if she would act in haste then he would murder her. Devender had kept the prosecutirx confined in his house and committed rape with her by extending threats to her. When the prosecutrix could not bear his illegal and wrong acts then she had been telling them that she should be sent to her parents. Then Santra (petitioner No. 1) wife of Sher Singh (petitioner No. 2) and Nita daughter of Sher Singh (petitioner No. 2) and petitioner No. 2-Sher Singh who are the parents and sister respectively of Devender put her in fear and threatened that if she insisted on going from their house then they would murder her and they would put her dead body on the railway lines. They would assert that the prosecutrix had committed suicide. The prosecutrix was living in the house of Sher Singh (petitioner No. 2) and they had an evil intention of murdering her. Devender had committed fraud with her and he had disappeared by telling her that he was going to make inquiries about the marriage. Now, the prosecutrix was not in a position to go to her parental house. Besides, the accused were also misbehaving with her with an evil intention. It would be just to impart justice to the prosecutrix and proper and just to register a case against the accused. Now, the prosecutrix was not in a position to go to her parental house. Besides, the accused were also misbehaving with her with an evil intention. It would be just to impart justice to the prosecutrix and proper and just to register a case against the accused. On the said allegations the FIR has been registered. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not attributed any offence of rape. Besides, Devender who is alleged to have been committed rape has been granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board. It is submitted that the petitioners are in custody since 29.8.2010 and the trial in the case would take time. In response, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioners had pressurized the prosecutrix not to leave their house; besides, had threatened of murdering her. The petitioners also did not stop their son Devender from committing rape on the prosecutrix. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after perusing the record, it may be noticed that the petitioners indeed are not alleged to have committed rape on the prosecutrix. Their role is only to have threatened the prosecutrix; besides, pressurized her. However, it may be noticed that the prosecutrix had come to the house of the accused on her own. Thereafter, she stayed with the son of the petitioners. The son of the petitioners who is said to have committed rape has been granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board. The role of the petitioners is to be established and proved by the prosecution. The trial in the case is likely to take time. The petitioners are in custody since 29.8.2010. The investigation in the case is complete and the challan has already been filed. Therefore, the custody of the petitioners is not required for the purposes of investigation. In view of the afore-noticed facts and circumstances, the petitioners on their furnishing personal bonds and surety each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul shall be admitted to bail.