Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 2 docs
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860

User Queries
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kanwar Singh vs State Of Haryana & Anr. on 24 April, 2012

Crl. Misc. No. M-33115 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-33115 of 2011

Date of Decision: 24.04.2012

***

Kanwar Singh

.. Petitioner

VS.

State of Haryana & Anr.

.. Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr. Vaneet Soni, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate

for respondent No.2.

***

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

Kanwar Singh, the complainant has brought this petition under the provisions of section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer for cancellation of regular bail granted to Sandeep-respondent No.2 by the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Narnaul vide order dated 9.9.2011 in a case registered by way of FIR No. 193 dated 22.8.2011 at Police Station Nangal Chaudhary, District Mahendergarh for an offence punishable under sections 354 and 506 IPC, to which sections 366-A, 376 and 511 IPC were added lateron.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only 19 days after the arrest, respondent No.2 has been granted regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Narnaul. He has Crl. Misc. No. M-33115 of 2011 2 submitted that it has been a case of attempt to commit rape and so it was a serious case and the court should not have granted bail to respondent No.2. He has further submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Narnaul has himself noticed the opinion of the doctor with regard to the prosecutrix that possibility of assault upon her could not be ruled out. He has submitted that in such a serious case bail was granted to respondent no.2. only after 19 days of his arrest.

Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has, however, submitted that there was no case against respondent no.2 for the offence of attempt to commit rape. According to him, the only case against him was of assault with intent to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix. He has submitted that the said offence is bailable. He has moreover submitted that offence under section 366-A was not committed in this case because in a case punishable under the aforesaid section, the procuration of the girl should be with intent or knowledge that the girl is likely to be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. According to him, the ingredients of this offence are missing in this case.

The main point to be decided at the trial in this case would be as to whether there was any allegation on the part of the complainant attracting the offence punishable under section 376 and 511 IPC. A bare perusal of the FIR would show that respondent no.2 took the prosecutrix and her sister to a secluded place where he kissed and fondled their breasts. He then asked the girls to undress themselves. However, the girls did not put off their clothes and started making noise on which he offered to take them to their home. He is, however, alleged to have Crl. Misc. No. M-33115 of 2011 3 threatened them of being killed if they disclosed this incident to anyone. When the girls did not take off their clothes and respondent no.2 had not even made them to lie down or had not come over them, no offence of attempt to rape can be said to be there. Keeping in view the true nature of the offence, the Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Narnaul appears to have rightly granted bail to respondent No.2. There is no allegation whatsoever on the part of the complainant that respondent no.2 has misused the concession of bail. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground for cancellation of bail granted to respondent no.2 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Narnaul vide order dated 9.9.2011. The petition is, consequently, dismissed. April 24,2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) Jiten JUDGE