Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1675 (PNJ)

Ram Singh @ Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana

2012-12-01

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral);— Tersely, the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition for regular bail and emanating from the record, are that the prosecutrix (name withheld) aged 40 years, was residing separately as she had dispute with her husband Joginder Pal. The matrimonial dispute is stated to be pending between them. On 19.8.2012 at about 2 PM, petitioner-accused Ram Singh alias Ashok Kumar son of Kashmiri Lal was stated to have entered into her house and committed rape without her consent. According to the prosecutrix, he has also threatened her with dire consequences in case she has disclosed this fact to any person. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the prosecutrix, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner-accused, vide FIR No.294 dated 19.8.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 451, 376 and 506 IPC by the police of Police Station Nissing, District Karnal. 2. Now the petitioner-accused has preferred the present petition for regular bail in the indicated criminal case, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.PC. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context. 5. As is evident from the record, as claimed by the prosecution that the prosecutrix was residing separately as she had some matrimonial dispute with her husband. He (Jogjnder Pal) is owner of two acres of land situated in village Bohla Khalsa. The prosecutrix did not allow her husband to cultivate the land and threatened him with dire consequences. She was claimed to have threatened to commit suicide in order to involve her husband in a false criminal case. Consequently, her husband reported the matter and the police went to the spot to enquire into the matter, wherein, the prosecutrix torn her clothes in front of the police & other persons, started hitting her head against the wall and shouted in a loud voice that she will commit suicide. Accordingly, the police prepared a Calender u/ss 107/151 Cr.PC (Annexure P2) against her in this regard. 6. Accordingly, the police prepared a Calender u/ss 107/151 Cr.PC (Annexure P2) against her in this regard. 6. Not only that, the prosecutrix earlier moved another complaint (Annexure P3), leveling the allegations of rape against one Inderjit and his son Pritam, to whom, her husband has given the land on lease. Subsequently, the allegations were found to be false by the police. Sequelly, it is not a matter of dispute that Joginder Pal, husband of the prosecutrix, has leased out the same very land to the present petitioner for cultivation for the relevant year, when the prosecutrix got registered the instant case against him. 7. Therefore, taking into consideration the previous conduct of the prosecutrix contained in the documents (Annexures P2 & P3) and the fact & motive that the petitioner is cultivating the same very land leased out to him by the husband of prosecutrix, to me, the false implication of the petitioner at the hands of the prosecutrix cannot possibly be ruled out at this stage in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 19.8.2012, since then, he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Even, since the case has not yet been committed to the Court of Session, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. 8. In the light of the aforesaid reasons 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 is hereby accepted. The petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. 9. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail in this relevant connection.