Judgment:
Criminal Misc.
No.M-4191 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.
No.M-4191 of 2014 Date of Decision:-30.06.2014 Saroj alias Saroj Rani ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present:- Mr.R.P.Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Navdeep Singh, Assistant A.G., Punjab.
T.P.S.MANN J.(Oral) Prayer made in the petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.55 dated 11.6.2013, registered at Police Station Garshankar under Sections 363, 366-A, 368 and 376 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC.
The aforementioned FIR was registered at the instance of Raksha Devi wherein she stated that on 10.6.2013 at 3.00 a.m.when she got up and switched on the light, she found her 16 yeaRs.old daughter, (hereinafter referred to as 'the prosecutrix').missing from her bed.
She started searching for the prosecutrix and noticed her standing outside with accused Sukha.
On seeing her, accused Sukha and the prosecutrix ran away towards the abadi and could not be traced out.
Initially, the FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC.
However, during the investigation of the Asija Vijay 2014.07.02 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Criminal Misc.
No.M-4191 of 2014 -2- case when accused Sukha was arrested by the police and the prosecutrix recovered from his custody, the offences under Sections 368 and 376 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC were added to the FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant Raksha Devi, her daughter i.e.the prosecutrix, nephew Rajesh Kumar, husband Ram Sarup and Mamta Rani, sister of the prosecutrix, have already been examined by the prosecution as PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW6 respectively.
None of these witnesses, who are the star witnesses of the prosecution, have supported the case of the prosecution.
All of them were got declared hostile by the Additional Public Prosecutor and thereafter cross-examined.
Despite the same, the prosecution could not elicit any material to connect the petitioner with the crime.
It is also submitted that the petitioner is the sister of aforementioned Sukha accused and is in custody since 3.10.2013.
It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court for the grant of bail but the said petition was dismissed on 10.12.2013 as having been withdrawn.
Subsequent thereto, the aforementioned five witnesses were examined by the prosecution on 17.4.2014 and 1.5.2014 and as they have refused to toe the line of the prosecution, the petitioner is likely to be acquitted of the charges against her.
Therefore, she may be released on bail.
Learned State counsel could not dispute the fact that the five star witnesses of the prosecution have not supported its case.
He, however, submits that the prosecution has cited 26 witnesses in support of its case and out of them only six have been examined and now the next date fixed before the trial Court is 7.7.2014.
Without commenting on the merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either party, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner Asija Vijay 2014.07.02 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Criminal Misc.
No.M-4191 of 2014 -3- deserves the concession of bail.
Resultantly, the petition is accepted.
Bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur.
June 30, 2014 ( T.P.S.MANN ) Vijay Asija JUDGE Asija Vijay 2014.07.02 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh