Vaid Kishan Vashisht v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Mr.Vikas Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) By invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., petitioner-Vaid Kishan Vashisht son of Johri Mal, has directed the present petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.225 dated

05.07.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, by the police of Police Station City, Narnaul, District Mohindergarh.

Succinctly, the prosecution claimed that Amardeep @ Aman and Harjeet Singh @ Kalu, sons of Daljeet Singh, had teased Ms.Pooja, daughter of complainant-Parveen. The matter was reported to the police, but subsequently, the complainant compromised the case. The complainant wrote a letter to the SHO, P.S.City Narnaul, that she did not want to prosecute or take any legal action against Amardeep and Harjeet Singh in this connection.

The case of the prosecution further proceeds that, she met the petitioner, who assured to help her in the matter. Two days thereafter i.e. on CRM No.M-23367 of 2010 2

17.06.2010, the petitioner called the complainant to his house and started misbehaving with her. She lodged a protest in this respect. As soon as, she started moving out, the petitioner bolted the door and tied a dog there. He forcibly committed rape against her wishes. She kept quite and ultimately, lodged a case against the petitioner on 05.07.2010 (i.e. 17 days after the occurrence). On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant-, the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused, in the manner depicted here-in-above.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Gurdev Singh, J.), while issuing notice of motion, passed the following order on 13.08.2010:-

Heard. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecutrix and the petitioner are politicians and the present FIR has been got registered by the prosecutrix at the instance on one Keshav, who contested the election against one Anjana Aggarwal and lost. She further submitted that there was delay of 19 days in lodging the FIR and that just after four days of the alleged incident, the complainant had taken part in the victory rally with the petitioner and her photographs were also taken at that time depicting both of them. If that is so, it becomes highly improbable if any such incident had taken place and the prosecutrix would not have celebrated the victory with the petitioner. Notice of motion for 23.8.2010. In the meanwhile, in the case of arrest of the petitioner, in the FIR mentioned in the petition, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:- i) he shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer; CRM No.M-23367 of 2010 3 ii) he shall not offer any threat, promise or inducement to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the same to the Investigating Officer/Court; and iii) he shall not leave the limits of this Country without prior permission of the Court.

At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Kirori Mal, learned State Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage and nothing is to be recovered from him.

As indicated earlier, once the first case of outraging the modesty of Ms.Pooja, daughter of the complainant, by Amardeep and Harjeet Singh, has already been compromised by her, then there was no occasion for her to go to the house of the petitioner for his help on the fateful day, as claimed in the FIR. Moreover, the present occurrence is stated to be of 17.06.2010. But the complainant did not lodge the report for seventeen days, for the reasons best known to her and it was only on 05.07.2010, when the present case was registered against the petitioner. Thus, the story of the prosecution appears to be somewhat improbable and unnatural.

What is not disputed here is that the complainant suffered the first statement on 06.07.2010 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, wherein, she has narrated entirely a coloured version (did not allege any rape), than that of depicted in the FIR and subsequently recorded statement dated 07.07.2010. She gave entirely a different version in the first statement before the Magistrate, which does not inspire confidence and is difficult to consume. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, because a woman, who had been a victim of rape few days earlier (i.e. on

17.06.2010), would not participate in a political rally held on 21.06.2010, as shown in the photograph(Annexure P-4) and would not raise slogans, has considerable force. CRM No.M-23367 of 2010 4

Therefore, from the sequences of events narrated here-in-above, the false implication of the petitioner cannot possibly be ruled out, at this stage, under the present set of circumstances. Above all, the absence of any kind of injury on the person of the complainant, completely wiped out the version, projected by her in the statement.

Consequently, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, the Arresting Officer would admit him on bail, on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety to his satisfaction, subject to the conditions that (i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) he shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court.

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail. Sequelly, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail, in this respect. The petition is disposed of accordingly. November 15, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) JUDGE CRM No.M-23367 of 2010 5