Judgment:
Crl.M.not M-23991 of 2013(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.not M-23991 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: August 20, 2013 Aasu and another .....Petitioners v.
State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the petitioners....RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.37153 of 2013 Requests for placing on record copy of DDR No.9, dated 12.4.2011 as Annexure P3; copy of statement of prosecutrix recorded by learned trial Court, on the basis of which impugned order was passed as Annexure P4; copy of statement of Dr.Asha-PW4 as Annexure P5; and copy of order dated 22.3.2013 passed by this Court vide which petitioners and Co.accused were ordered to be summoned to face trial alongwith accused already facing trial by allowing revision petition filed by the complainant against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, as Annexure P6.
The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
Crl.M.not M-23991 of 2013 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.143, dated 15.4.2011, under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(g) IPC, registered at Police Station Punhana, District Mewat.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nuh, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioners for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Meenu 2013.08.21 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl.M.not M-23991 of 2013(O&M) -2- Brief allegations are that prosecutrix was kidnapped by various persons including the present petitioners-accused and thereafter rape was committed upon her by all of them.
In all, seven persons have been implicated in this FIR for having kidnapped her and committing gang rape upon her.
Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.was also recorded and, however, after completion of investigation, police filed challan against four of the accused including one juvenile and the remaining accused were found innocent.
During trial statement of prosecutrix was recorded in which she named the present petitioners as well and an application was moved before learned trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C.for summoning present petitioners as an additional accused.
The same was dismissed by learned trial Court and, however, revision filed by the complainant against the said order was accepted by this Court and the present petitioners were also ordered to be summoned to face trial alongwith the co-accused already facing trial.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioneRs.accused that version of prosecutrix cannot be believed as DDR was lodged after about one week of the return of the prosecutrix.
It is also contended that there are serious discrepancies in the various statements of the prosecutrix.
He has also contended that even no application has been filed for summoning some other accused who were also named by prosecutrix in her statement before the trial Court.
Hence, it is contended that no reliance can be placed upon her testimony.
However, there are very serious allegations against petitioneRs.accused.
Daughter of the complainant, i.e., prosecutrix, was subjected to gang rape.
According to her, she had gone from her house for washing clothes and on seeing her alone petitioners alongwith co-accused had taken her away forcibly in a vehicle and thereafter gang rape was committed upon her by petitioners and other co-accused.
Petitioners have been named by her in her statement before the police.
She also named the petitioners in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.She also named them even in the statement before the trial Court.
Hence, in view of the serious allegations against petitioneRs.Meenu accused, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory 2013.08.21 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl.M.not M-23991 of 2013(O&M) -3- bail should be granted to them.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioners-Aasu and Aarif for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
20.8.2013 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Meenu 2013.08.21 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh