Full Judgment
CRM-M No.21629 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-21629 of 2014 Date of decision :
08. 07.2014 Usman ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satyawan Rathee, DAG, Haryana for the State. **** Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
(Oral) Petitioner-Usman son of Ajmer, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of regular bail, in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.412 dated 18.10.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 4 of Prevention of Child from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, by the police of Police Station Safidon, District Jind.
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context. Sumit Kumar 2014.07.08 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21629 of 2014 -2- 4. Precisely, the prosecution claimed that on 17.10.2013, at about 09.15. AM, Ritu daughter of complainant Surinder Singh had gone to her college as usual. She did not return to her home till late evening. Thereafter, complainant started searching her but in vain. During the course of search, complainant came to know that petitioner-Usman son of Ajmer has enticed away her daughter for the purpose of marriage. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner. The victim was stated to have voluntarily performed marriage with the petitioner. After solemnization of marriage, they have filed a joint protection petition bearing number CRM- M-36201 of 2013, in which, Superintendent of Police-Jind was directed to consider the threat perception to their lives by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Sabina J.), by virtue of order dated 25.10.2013(Annexure P-2).
5. Not only that, Magistrate has recorded the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., on 18.11.2013, which, in substance, is as under:- “Stated I am student of B.Sc. 1st year in Matis Degree College, Anta. Since my school days, Usman was studying with me and thereafter started doing polytechnic course in my college. We both love each other and wanted to marry. My family came to know about this fact. They threatened that if again I meet Usman, then they would eliminate me. I was quite frightened. On 17.10.2013, I myself asked Usman to marry after running away from there. Then we both of us planned to marry in a Mosque at Ghaziabad. Firstly I went to Tehsil Office, Karnal, purchased a stamp paper and changed my religion. After adopting Muslim religion, I changed my name to Rihana. On 18.10.2013, we both got marriage performed in a Mosque at Ghaziabad as per Muslim rites. On 25.10.2013, we got police protection from High Court. Since our marriage, we were living at Panipat in a rented Sumit Kumar 2014.07.08 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21629 of 2014 -3- accommodation. Today at 5-6 AM, the police brought us to Safidon. I left alongwith Usman with my free will and performed marriage as per my free will. Usman has no fault in the same. I want no action against Usman. This statement has been given by me without any pressure and with my own free will.”
. Therefore, in that eventuality, whether indicated offences are made out against the petitioner or not, inter alia, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court.
6. Be that as it may, petitioner who is young boy of 19 years of age was arrested on 08.11.2013. Since then, he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. The final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.
7. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition for regular bail is accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail. 08.07.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) sumit.k Judge Sumit Kumar 2014.07.08 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document