Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1331 (PNJ)

Satbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana

2012-09-28

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - Tersely, the facts & material, which need a necessary mention for deciding the instant petition for regular bail and emanating from the record, are that, the prosecutrix (name withheld) filed a complaint on 28.4.2012 in the Court of Area Magistrate, Gurgaon against petitioner-accused Dr.Satbir Singh Sehrawat son of Ganpat Singh, interalia, pleading that she is a divorced woman. She met the petitioner in his office in the year 2005, while he was posted as Block Education Officer (for brevity “the BEO”) in Mewat. She was stated to have applied for the post of Guest Teacher. It was alleged that petitioner gave her the option of marking her attendance only on one day in a week. One other teacher (not petitioner) offered to establish sexual relations with her. She made a complaint against him to the petitioner, but he did not take any action against him. Petitioner was claimed to have threatened the complainant that in case, she would not establish sexual relationship with him, he will get her removed from service. Then, he physically exploited her. It was claimed that on 10.9.2008, the complainant was appointed as JBT teacher at village Pali, District Faridabad and petitioner was stated to have got her posted at Tauru on deputation. There, he also establish sexual relationship with her. He also established sexual relationship with her in various hotels in Gurgaon after extending threats to her. 2. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that petitioner-accused has established sexual relationship with her for the last about seven years and repeatedly committed the sexual exploitation with her in general and on 28.4.2012 in particular. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant-prosecturix, the present case was registered against petitioner-accused (Dr.Satbir Singh Sehrawat) after a gap of seven years, by way of FIR No.344 dated 19.6.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376-B, 506, 323, 379, 452, 341, 354 and 406 IPC by the police of Police Station City Gurgaon in the manner depicted here-in-above. 3. Having exercised and lost his right before Additional Sessions Judge, now the petitioner-accused has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail in the indicated criminal case, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.PC. 4. 3. Having exercised and lost his right before Additional Sessions Judge, now the petitioner-accused has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail in the indicated criminal case, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.PC. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context. 6. As is evident from the record, the prosecution claimed that petitioner-accused was working as BEO in the year 2005 when the complainant-prosecutrix was stated to have met him. He continued sexual exploitation with her from 2005 to 2012 when the present case was registered. The prosecutrix did not make any complaint to any authority about the conduct of the petitioner during the long period of about seven years in this relevant connection. Had the petitioner continued sexual exploitation as claimed by the prosecutrix, in that eventuality, she would have made complaint to the police in this regard during the long period of seven years. In this manner, the story of prosecution appears to be highly improbable. 7. Not only that, Annexure P1 is complaint dated 29.5.2012 made by the petitioner to the DCP (West) against the complainant and Narender Kadiyan, ACP, which is as under:- “Smt. Sangeeta R/o Tauru District Mewat has filed a complaint against me on 28/04/2012 that she had been threatened at Rajiv Chowk, Gurgaon. When I told Mr.Narender Kadiyan, ACP that I was in Chandigarh on above said date and he could get the location of my mobile No.09416286221 checked, he clearly said that where ever I might be, this matter concerns a woman, and that I should give him Rs. seven lakhs, and he would settle the matter himself. Sir, Mr.Narender Kadiyan has relations with this woman. This woman’s mobile No. is 08295869469. This number’s call details should be taken out and every thing would become clear itself. I have never talked to her over the phone. Both of them have hatched a conspiracy to blackmail me. This woman is a resident of Tauru District Mewat. My house is near Rajiv Chowk. This woman’s mobile No. is 08295869469. This number’s call details should be taken out and every thing would become clear itself. I have never talked to her over the phone. Both of them have hatched a conspiracy to blackmail me. This woman is a resident of Tauru District Mewat. My house is near Rajiv Chowk. She has given the false complaint in conspiracy with Mr.Narender Kaidyan, otherwise, if there is any truth, she would have given the complaint at Tauru, Mewat. She is doing job at Faridabad and lives in Tauru. She has no link with Gurgaon. There is no bus service from Rajiv Chowk to Tauru or Faridabad and Tauru is a sub-division which has a Market. She says that she had come to Gurgaon for some work, what is the point of getting down at Rajiv Chowk, the bus stops at bus stand. This whole drama has been played by both of them in conspiracy because my house is near Rajiv Chowk. Therefore, it is requested Sir, that the call details of their mobile numbers should be checked and whoever is the accused, should be punished.” 8. Sequelly, Annexure P3 is a copy of resolution passed by the Panchayat, which was signed by the Headmaster, Government School, Tauru as well, which would indicate that the false implication of petitioner by the complainant cannot be ruled out under the present set of circumstances. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 3.7.2012, since then, he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served in further detained him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. The conclusion of trial would naturally take a long time. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of all facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the main case, the instant petition for regular bail is accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of CJM Gurgaon. 10. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of CJM Gurgaon. 10. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the trial of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition in this relevant direction.