Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2592 (PNJ)

Vinod Kumar v. State of U. T. , Chandigarh

2019-09-18

HARI PAL VERMA

body2019
Judgment Mr. Hari Pal Verma, J. (Oral):- CRM-8587-2019 Prayer in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for placing on record copy of challan dated 21.12.2018 (Annexure P-4). 2. Application is allowed, as prayed for. The copy of challan(Annexure P-4), is taken on record. CRM-28474-2019 3. Prayer in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is forplacing on record copies of statements of the prosecutrix (Annexure P-5). 4. Application is allowed, as prayed for. The copies of statementsof the prosecutrix (Annexure P-5), are taken on record, subject to all justexceptions. CRM-M-1676-2019 5. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is forgrant of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of trial in FIRNo.412 dated 17.10.2018 under Sections 376, 506, 511 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-39, Chandigarh. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that apart from the factthat the petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2018, only 04 witnesses havebeen examined in the case, whereas 12 witnesses have been cited by theprosecution. He further states that the petitioner is about 51 years of age and he has falsely been implicated in the case as the petitioner is a witnessto the agreement to sell entered between the mother of the prosecutrix andone Savitri. Moreover, mother of the prosecutrix has issued a cheque for anamount of Rs.23,50,000/- in discharge of payment in terms of theagreement to sell entered between the parties and on its presentation, thecheque was bounced. He refers to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded on 04.07.2019 wherein even the prosecutrix has stated that on two or three occasions she has gone with the accused to see the house which was subject matter of agreement and thus the prosecutrix and her mother were taken to the house sought to be purchased i.e. House No.268, Gulmohar Complex,Desu Majra, Kharar. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of U.T., Chandigarh has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious. The victim is a MBA student and on the relevant date of incident, the petitioner has come tothe house of the victim when she was alone and has touched her inappropriately. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. There is no dispute as regards execution of the agreement to sell entered between the mother of the prosecutrix and one Savitri. The victim is a MBA student and on the relevant date of incident, the petitioner has come tothe house of the victim when she was alone and has touched her inappropriately. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. There is no dispute as regards execution of the agreement to sell entered between the mother of the prosecutrix and one Savitri. In that agreement, the petitioner was cited as a witness, however, when the cheque issued by the mother of the prosecutrix was presented and was dishonoured. It is apparent in the statement of PW1 during trial. Furthermore, out of 12 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 04 witnesses have been examined so far. In this manner, trial in the case is not likely to be concluded in the near future. Petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2018. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing of his bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. 10. However, it is made clear that the observations madehereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of thecase and the trial Court shall proceed with the trial independently withoutbeing influenced by the order of bail passed by this Court.