Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15111 = 2020 L.A.R. (e-Suppl.) 330
Decided on: 10.07.2020
(Proceedings Through V.C.)
Present:
Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 120-B – Rape – Regular bail -- Petitioner has neither alleged to have committed rape upon the prosecutrix nor has he done anything, which would be termed as an overt act and further the petitioner in custody, has now completed more than 14 months -- With the prevailing circumstances, trial is not likely to proceed soon as the Courts are not recording evidence at present -- Petitioner is directed to be release on bail.
(Para 7, 8)
JUDGMENT
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) --
CRM No.10996 of 2020
1. Prayer in this application is for exemption from filing process fee of Rs.50/- at this stage with liberty to pay the same at a later stage.
2. Application is allowed subject to just exceptions.
3. Exemption, as prayed for, is granted.
CRM-M No.12784 of 2020
4. Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.56 dated 30.05.2019 registered under Sections 376-D and 120-B IPC at Police Station Basti Bawa Khel, Jalandhar.
5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as he is the brother of the main accused Jassi, who along with two other young boys, committed rape upon the prosecutrix. His submission is that the petitioner was arrested on 05.06.2019 and is in custody since then. No allegations have been made against the petitioner with regard to he having committed any overt act, what to say of rape upon the prosecutrix. The allegations are that the petitioner had picked her up on his motorcycle and thereafter travelled with her to different places but at no occasion has it been stated that he has misbehaved with the prosecutrix. He states that the petitioner is in custody for more than one year and in the prevailing circumstances, the trial is not likely to conclude in near future.
6. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the convinced and active role of the petitioner, which aided in the commission of the crime, is clear and has been spelt out in the FIR itself. His submission is that the petitioner although has not been said to have committed the offence of rape or any other overt act but his presence at every occasion establishes his involvement in the commission of the crime. Assertion has been made that the charge stands framed and seven witnesses have also been examined out of the total eight witnesses. The next date of hearing is 03.08.2020 and, therefore, the petitioner be not granted the concession of bail.
7. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and keeping in view the allegations against the petitioner, from where it is apparent that the petitioner has neither alleged to have committed rape upon the prosecutrix nor has he done anything, which would be termed as an overt act and further the petitioner being in custody since 05.06.2019 has now completed more than 14 months in July, with the prevailing circumstances, trial is not likely to proceed soon as the Courts are not recording evidence at present, accordingly the present petition is allowed.
8. Petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Jalandhar.
9. Any observations made hereinabove are for the purpose of disposal of the present petition alone and shall have no bearing on the merit of the case during the trial in any manner.
Petition allowed.
********