Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 327 (PNJ)

Yudhveer alias Sushu v. State of Haryana

2012-02-23

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Yudhveer alias Sushu and Bantu have sought regular bail by way of this petition brought under the provisions of section 439 Cr. P.C. in a case registered by way of FIR No.56 dated 3.2.2011 at Police Station Meham, District Rohtak for an offence punishable under section 376(2)(g) read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and sections 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 2. The case is one of sale of Payal by Asha to Bala and of further handing over of said Payal by Bala to various other persons for sexual intercourse. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were not named in the FIR. According to him, she was not even knowing the petitioners. He has further submitted that after the arrest of the petitioners, they have not been put to test identification parade to fix their identity as the persons committing gang rape. He has further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated at the instance of their co-accused. He has also submitted that the complainant did not even name the petitioners in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners are in custody for the last 9-1/2 months and for the last five dates, prosecutrix is not traceable for her evidence. 4. Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that the prosecutrix has named the petitioners in her supplementary statement. He has, however, admitted that the prosecutrix is not traceable for the last five dates fixed in the case for prosecution evidence. 5. It is a fact that the prosecutrix did not name the petitioners in the FIR. However, this is not something very surprising because in such cases, the persons to whom the prosecutrix was sold, may not be known to her. The prosecutrix did not name the petitioners in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. also. It is strange that on the same day, the investigating officer recorded her supplementary statement and has shown that she has named the petitioners. Nothing appears on the record as to how on the very same day, the prosecutrix came to know about the names of the petitioners. It is also a fact that the petitioners were not put to test identification parade. 6. Nothing appears on the record as to how on the very same day, the prosecutrix came to know about the names of the petitioners. It is also a fact that the petitioners were not put to test identification parade. 6. The moot point at the trial would be the identity of the petitioners as the culprits. The prosecutrix is not traceable for the last five dates fixed in the case for prosecution evidence. 7. In view of these circumstances, the petitioners are found to deserve the concession of regular bail. The petition is, consequently, allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond each in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak.