Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1008 (PNJ)

Anupam v. State of Haryana

2012-07-31

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.: (Oral) - This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner Anupam who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 376-A, 452 and 506, IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of an application dated 18.05.2012 moved by the prosecutrix (name not disclosed in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court) on the broad allegations that on the date of alleged occurrence i.e. 01.01.2012 the prosecutrix was all alone at her house when the accused came there and forcibly and without her consent committed rape on her. When her mother who had gone to the market for booking of cooking gas came back, on seeing her the petitioner ran away. After arrival of the father and brother of the prosecutrix, the FIR was lodged. 3. Learned counsel contends that there was delay of 5-1/2 months in lodging the FIR. He further submits that the MLR was also conducted after 5-1/2 months of the occurrence. He also contends that prosecutrix was aged about 19 years. No offence under Section 376-A,IPC is made out. It was also contended that since there was no injury on the person of the prosecutrix,therefore, it could at the most be a case of consent. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions, from ASI Naresh Kumar of Police Station, Dharuhera, District Rewari submits that the statement of the prosecutrix in terms of Section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, wherein she has reiterated the complete fact. He further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential in this case. He further submits that though the police had inadvertently added offence under Section 376-A,IPC, but the contents of the FIR and statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C., disclose the commission of the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC. On these basis, learned counsel for the State has prayed for dismissal of the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail to him. 5. Heard. 6. No doubt, the police has registered the case under Section 376-A, IPC in addition to Sections 452 and 506, IPC against the petitioner. The contents of the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C., clearly disclose the commission of the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC. 5. Heard. 6. No doubt, the police has registered the case under Section 376-A, IPC in addition to Sections 452 and 506, IPC against the petitioner. The contents of the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C., clearly disclose the commission of the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC. All the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant at this stage. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner Aasu Vs. State of Haryana, 2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 512 and Mishri Lal Bhandari Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2011 (7) R.C.R.(Criminal) 19 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case since both the judgments are with regard to the decision in appeal. 7. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and the facts that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential in the present case, the present petition is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------