Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1285 (PNJ)

Bhim Sen v. State of Punjab

2024-10-24

NIDHI GUPTA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ms. Nidhi Gupta, J. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner during pendency of the trial in case FIR No.274 dated 08.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 and 342 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, at Police Station Lambi, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. 2. The present FIR has been registered on the basis of statement of the complainant/father of the alleged victim, which reads as follows:- “Statement of Rajpal Singh son of Hans Raj resident of Banwala Anuka, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib aged about 44 years, Mobile No. 97796-29944 stated that I am resident of above said address and working as a labourer. I have 5 daughters. Elder daughter xxxx thereafter xxxx, thereafter xxxx, thereafter xxxx and younger one xxxx and son namely Rameshinder. xxxx is aged about 17 years and had passed 10th from Government Senior Secondary School, Village Anu. They went to village Chak Chet Ram, Suratgarh for plucking the cotton crop of Bhim Ram son of Rana Ram and therafter came back to our village, thereafter on 25.11.2023, we went to Sleep after taking meal, when we wake up, we found my daughter Sukhpreet Kaur was not present in house. We alongwith my family members searched my daughter, but could not found. I assured that victim who is minor was enticed by Bhim Ram on the pretext of marriage. I alongwith Gurmeet Singh went to P.S Lambi to record the statement upon which, the present FIR was registered....” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the allegations made in the FIR are false and fabricated. It is submitted that as per the testimony of the victim her date of birth is 07.7.2005. As such, on the date of incident 1.e. 25.11.2023, she was more than 18 years of age. It is further submitted that the complainant has already been examined as PW1 and the victim as PW3. Their testimonies are on record as Annexures P-2 and P-3 respectively; and both these material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. The petitioner has been in custody for almost 09 months. Accordingly learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. 4. Their testimonies are on record as Annexures P-2 and P-3 respectively; and both these material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. The petitioner has been in custody for almost 09 months. Accordingly learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made on behalf of petitioner and submits that as per the School Certificate issued by the Punjab School Education Board, the date of birth of the victim is 20.7.2006, as such, on the date of incident, the victim was about 17 years of age. It is further submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim had fully supported the allegations made in the FIR. However, it is admitted that in their testimonies (Annexure P-2 and P-3) the complainant and the victim respectively as PW1 and PW3 have turned hostile. Learned counsel, on instructions, informs that out of total 21 prosecution witnesses, 03 witnesses have been examined and the next date fixed before the learned trial Court is 28.10.2024. Learned State counsel has filed the Custody Certificate dated 22.10.2024 in Court. The same is taken on record. Copy thereof supplied to the counsel opposite. As per the Custody Certificate, the petitioner has undergone the actual custody of 08 months and 28 days as undertrial. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file carefully. 6. Without commenting on the merits of the case, however, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case as noted above, including the fact that: (a) the petitioner has undergone actual custody of 08 months and 28 days as undertrial; (b) perusal of the custody certificate reveals that there is no other case against the petitioner; (c) the trial of the case is likely to consume considerable time as out of total 21 prosecution witnesses only 03 witnesses have been examined so far; and (d) material witnesses i.e. the complainant and the victim have already been examined, further custody of the petitioner is not justified. Accordingly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, it is ordered that the petitioner Bhim Sen s/o Ranveer Ram alias Rana Ram be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 7. The petition is allowed.