Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1383 (PNJ)

Babu v. State of Haryana

2012-10-04

PARAMJEET SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: (Oral) - This is a petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.369 dated 23.3.2011 registered under Sections 363/366-A/376/506 IPC at Police Station City Panipat, District Panipat. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 25.3.2011 at 5.30 p.m. No allegation of rape is mentioned in the said statement made before the Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that once the statement before the Magistrate is made, there is no relevancy of the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner further made reference to the statement recorded in the Court during the course of trial that number of persons were there and had gone to Manali on bus and at the most it can be a case of consent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that co-accused, against whom identical allegations were levelled, have been granted bail. 3. The said contentions have been vehemently opposed by the learned State counsel. It is contended by the learned State counsel that name of Babu – petitioner – figures in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., however minute details are not there but specific details are mentioned in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as in the statement in Court. 4. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Admittedly, name of Babu – petitioner – figures in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and on the same day statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein specific allegation of rape has been mentioned. Even the statement recorded in the Court reveals that Babu – petitioner – committed rape on the prosecutrix and he has been identified in the Court. 6. There is specific allegation against the petitioner that he had allured the prosecutrix to go to a place and he stayed with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has specifically levelled allegations against the petitioner but so far as the other co-accused are concerned they were found innocent during investigation. I have perused the order dated 5.7.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, wherein the co-accused have been granted bail. The prosecutrix has specifically levelled allegations against the petitioner but so far as the other co-accused are concerned they were found innocent during investigation. I have perused the order dated 5.7.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, wherein the co-accused have been granted bail. The reason for granting bail is that police has found them innocent and they have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. For that reason petitioner cannot claim parity with them. The allegation against the petitioner is of gangrape committed on the prosecutrix. 7. Keeping in view that specific allegations are there against the petitioner, no ground for concession of regular bail is made out. 8. Dismissed.