Satyanarayan v. State of Ha of Haryana and another
Case Details
CRM-M- -11421-2025 1- -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIG T OF PUNJAB & HARYANA NDIGARH 225 CRM-M-11421-2025 Date of decision: 4.11.2025 Sat Naraya arayan @ Shankar @ Satyanarayan ...Petitioner Versus State of Ha of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: AM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AA AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present : Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advoca dvocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikram Singh, AAG, Hary , Haryana. ***** AARADHN ADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL) 1. Petitioner, an accused, in cas in case FIR No. 84 dated 18.03.202 .2023, under Secti r Sections 323, 328, 377 of Indian P dian Penal Code, Section 4 of POCS POCSO Act and S and Section 27 of the Narcotic Dru ic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance bstances (NDPS), A S), Act 1985, registered against him st him at Police Station Purani Sub i Subzi Mandi, Dis di, District Rohtak, has filed the pres e present petition for grant of regul regular bail. 2. In brief, the allegation aga n against petitioner is that he aft e after administeri nistering intoxicating substance/drug drug to victim, aged about 17 years so ears son of Mohan Mohani, resident of Fatehpuri Colo Colony, Rohtak, forcibly committe mmitted unnatural s tural sex with him against his wishes. ishes. On 18.3.2023, on an informatio rmation received fro ved from hospital authorities regardin garding admission of victim boy ‘S’ o y ‘S’ on account of unt of having received injuries i ries in unnatural sexual intercours ercourse committed itted upon him, police authorities rea ties reached the hospital, collected ruq ted ruqa GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -11421-2025 2- -2 and MLR, LR, sought permission of the Docto Doctor on duty to record the stateme atement of injured, jured, who vide Annexure P-1 elabora elaborated upon the sequence of even f events that led to t led to the incident. The victim boy in boy in his statement alleged that he wa t he was 17 years ol ears old and used to remain at home a ome as he had left school after 7th cla class and he was e was a drug addict. On 15.3.2023, 2023, he was sitting in the office of h e of his friend, nam d, namely, Sumit @ Boda from there there, they went to the house of on of one Kalia, who , whose parents had died. There Sha Shankar (P), son of Amar Nath wa ath was already pre dy present. At about 10 PM, Sumit a umit and Kalia went out to bring som g some goods and s and Shankar gave ‘Lal Pari’ dru i’ drug to him and he became ver e very intoxicated icated. During this period, victim bo tim boy felt that Shankar was openin opening his pant b ant but due to intoxicating state, h tate, he could not resist and Shank Shankar committed itted wrong act with him. Due to hea to heavily intoxicated condition, he fe , he fell asleep at th p at the house of Kalia and on the nex the next day, i.e. 16.3.2023, he returne returned to his hous s house. On 17.3.2023, on feeling pa ing pain, victim boy narrated the who e whole incident to ent to his mother, who brought him t him to General Hospital, Rothak fo thak for treatment, w ment, where he was under treatment. W ent. With this backdrop, a formal cas al case
Legal Reasoning
vide FIR N FIR No. 84 dated 18.03.2023 was was registered against him, und under Sections 32 ons 323, 328, 377 of Indian Penal Co nal Code, Section 4 of POCSO Act an Act and Section 27 on 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psyc d Psychotropic Substances (NDPS), A S), Act 1985, at Po , at Police Station Purani Subzi Mandi Mandi, District Rohtak. Investigation was launched. hed. Blood sample of victim boy wa oy was obtained for chemical analysis. His age s age proof by way of copies of bir of birth certificate ficate and school certificate etc. were . were collected. Place of occurrenc urrence was inspect inspected. Statements of witnesses wer es were recorded. Victim boy was als as also produced b uced before the learned Judicial Magis Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, where h here his statement u ment under Section 164 of Code of Cr of Criminal Procedure (Section 183 o 183 of GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -11421-2025 3- -3 BNSS) was S) was got recorded. Counsellng was g was also provided to the victim bo tim boy. Accused w sed was arrested on 23.3.2023, join , joined in investigation and was g was got medico leg co legally examined. During inter interrogation, he suffered disclosu sclosure statement ment and in pursuance thereto, he to, he got demarcated the place o lace of occurrence. rrence. Thereafter, challan was filed in filed in the Court. Petitioner filed an applicatio lication for grant of bail before th fore the learned Ad ed Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak ohtak. The same came to be dismisse smissed vide order d 6). order dated 9.12.2024 (Annexure P-6) 3. Learned counsel for the petit e petitioner submits the petitioner ha ner has been falsely falsely implicated in the present case. t case. Falsity of the case set up by th p by the prosecution cution is apparent from the fact th fact that though the alleged incide incident occurred in rred in the late hours of 15.3.2023 and 23 and victim boy was got admitted itted in the hospita ospital on 17.3.2023 but the criminal iminal proceedings in the shape of FI of FIR was lodged lodged on 18.3.2023. Continuing furt
Legal Reasoning
ng further, learned counsel submits th its that the stand of tand of the victim is that he was subjec subjected to unnatural sex by petitione titioner, who assaul assaulted him and also drugged him. B him. But surprisingly enough, no injur o injury marks were s were noticed either on the private p vate parts or on the body of the victim victim. Moreover, over, the Doctor who examined the ed the victim, also did not notice an tice any injury mark y marks on the body of the victim inc tim including his private parts. At th At this stage, learn , learned counsel has also referred to red to the copy of the MLR (Annexu nnexure P-2). Wher Wherein the Doctor who examined th ned the victim, observed as under:- “Type of Injury Injury Details “Typ Marked Injury N ry No Others Othe ON EXAMINATION NO NO EXTERNAL No 1 INJURY AROUND THE THE ANUS AND SKIN TAG PRESE ESENT NEAR ANAL ORIFICE ADV S V SURGEON OPINION. GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -11421-2025 4- -4 Others Othe MULTIPLE OLD HEAD EAD SCAR OF No 2 VERIOUS STAGE PRES PRESENT OVER BY LATERAL AN L ANTERIOR ASPECT AND LEFT FO T FOREARM.” In this context, learned counse counsel also placed on record a copy o copy of the stateme tatement recorded on oath of Dr. Ma r. Manish, who while appearing in th g in the witness bo ess box as PW14, during the course course of his cross-examination, fair fairly admitted th tted that no evidence of anal intercours ercourse was found. Learned counsel also referr referred to the DNA report date t dated 29.10.2024 .2024 (Annexure P-5) wherein, follow following opinion was given:- “DNA profile obtained from from stains on source of item No No.2 (underwear stated to be of vi of victim) which is not matching wi g with the DNA profile of source of i of item No.8 (blood sample stated ted to be of accused).” The said report, as per learn learned counsel, clinches the case case in favour of p ur of petitioner. The other leg of submission ission raised by learned counsel fo nsel for petitioner ioner is that even though compla omplainant has been examined, b ed, but completion letion of trial is likely to take sometim ometime, for after prosecution evidenc vidence is conclude ncluded, petitioner would also lead de ead defence evidence to substantiate h tiate his plea that he that he has been falsely implicated. In In the backdrop of arguments raise ts raised hereinabov nabove, learned counsel contends that s that further incarceration of petition etitioner in custody stody would not serve any useful p eful purpose. Prayer for allowing th ing the petition has ion has been made. 4. Status report by way of affidav affidavit of Ravi Khundia, HPS, Depu Deputy Superintend rintendent of Police, Rohtak has been been filed. While opposing the reque request for bail o bail of petitioner, learned State co ate counsel submits that in view o view of GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -11421-2025 5- -5 seriousness usness of offence, no lenient view d iew deserves to be taken in favour o vour of petitioner, ioner, whose past antecedents are far re far from satisfactory (being involve nvolved in several c veral cases, details mentioned in the in the Status Report). Further, learne learned State couns counsel contends that in his statemen tement recorded ‘on oath’ in the Cour e Court, victim boy m boy has given a graphic descripti scription of the manner in which th ich the incident oc ent occurred and petitioner committed mitted unnatural sex on him. Learne Learned State couns counsel next submits that if petitioner itioner is released on bail, there is ever is every possibility ibility of him fleeing from the process rocess of justice by not appearing in th g in the Court. Pray Prayer for dismissal of the petition h ition has been made. 5. I have heard the learned coun d counsel for the parties and have gon ve gone through the gh the documents on record. 6. In view of the submissions adv ons advanced by learned counsel for th l for the petitioner, b ioner, but without commenting on the m n the merits of the case, the fact that th that the petitioner h ioner has been in custody since 23 23.03.2023, after filing of challa challan, charge has e has been framed, complainant-vic victim has also been examined, thu d, thus, the possibil ossibility of petitioner overawing vict ng victim stands negated. However, t ver, the possibility ibility of completion of trial in the nea he near future, in light of the argumen guments advanced b nced by learned counsel for petitione titioner, is quite remote. This Court Court is thus of the the opinion that further incarceratio ceration of petitioner would not only b only be violative of tive of his rights under Article 21 of th 1 of the Constitution of India, includin cluding right to spe to speedy trial but would also be ag be against the principle of “Bail is il is a general r l rule and incarceration is an e an exception” as held by Hon’b Hon’ble Supreme C eme Court in Dataram v. State of Utta f Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2 018(2) RCR (Crim Criminal) 131. 7. Resultantly, in view of discu discussion made above, petitioner ioner is granted the ted the concession of bail subject to h to his furnishing bail/surety bonds s to GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -11421-2025 6- -6 the satisfa satisfaction of learned trial Court/D ourt/Duty Magistrate concerned. Th ed. The petitioner s ioner shall abide by the following cond g conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not not leave the country without prio prior permission of the trial Court ourt and shall deposit the passport ort in the trial Court. (ii) The petitioner will not tam t tamper with the evidence during th ng the trial. (iii) The petitioner will ill not pressurize/ e intimidate the th prosecution witnesses. (iv) The petitioner will appea ppear before the trial Court on eac each and every date fixed, unless i ess is exempted by a specific order der of Court. (v) The petitioner shall not not commit an offence similar to th to the offence of which, he is an acc accused, or for commission of whic which he is suspected of. (vi) The petitioner shall no l not directly or indirectly coerc oerce, induce, threaten or promise to ise to any person acquainted with th ith the facts of the case so as to dissu dissuade him/her from disclosing suc g such facts to the Court or to any any police officer or tamper with th ith the evidence in any manner. (vii) The petitioner shall not in rty. ot in any manner misuse his liberty. (viii) The petitioner shall f ll furnish his address and mobi obile number to the Trial Court fo rt forthwith and shall not change th ge the same till the conclusion of the f the trial and in case for any reaso eason, the petitioner seeks to chang ange any of the aforesaid, the sam same shall be done only with prio prior intimation to the learned Tri Trial Court, stating the reason for th for the same. (ix) The trial Court/Duty M y Magistrate may impose any oth other condition, as deemed appropri ropriate while releasing the petitione tioner. 8. Accordingly, the present petiti t petition is allowed and it is made cle de clear that in case in case there is any breach of the afore e aforesaid conditions, the State shall b shall be at liberty t erty to seek cancellation of bail as ail as granted to the petitioner by th by this GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -11421-2025 7- -7 order. 9.
Decision
In view of the above, it is cla t is clarified that the observations mad ns made herein are l n are limited for the purpose of prese f present proceedings and would not b d not be construed a trued as an opinion on the merits of the s of the case and the trial would procee proceed independen endently of the aforesaid observations ations. .2025 04.11.2025 gbs (AARADHNA SAWHNEY NEY) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes / No Yes / No GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document