Decided on Nov 27 v. State of Punjab
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 27 Nov 2009
- Bench
- RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Outcome
Bail granted
anything on the merits, the regular bail petition is allowed and the
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 323, 324, 376, 452, 511
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.R.S.Cheema, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.R.K.Trikha, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.R.S.Rawat, AAG,Punjab, for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J:(Oral) This is a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,'Cr.P.C.'), for regular bail in case FIR No.165 dated 01.09.2009 registered under Sections 376,511,452,34 IPC (Sections 323/324 IPC, added further) at Police Station, City Mansa, District Mansa. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of Sarbjit Kaur, who had alleged that she has been married to Constable Gurjit Singh for about 12 years and is having a daughter aged 9 years. The petitioner lives on a chaubara in front of her quarter and used to stare at her. On 01.9.2009, at about 8.30.p.m. the petitioner came to his house in an inebriated condition. He bolted the door, embraced her and put her on the bed.
Thereafter, the petitioner put his hand on the CRM.M 28778 of 2009 2 string of her salwar and broke it. Her glass bangles were also broken. She raised alarm but as the televisions in the neighbourhood were on, her alarm was not heard outside. In the meantime, after half an hour, her husband came from market and saved her. The petitioner picked up the base-ball bat from her house and gave a blow on the forehead of her husband. In the meantime, Abhishek Kumar son of Suresh Kumar @ Chuha (petitioner) armed with big screw driver came there and caused an injury on the forehead of her husband and then they fled away from the spot. Then Jagwant Singh Head Constable and others came on the spot and took her husband to the hospital because he was bleeding profusely. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the matter was enquired into by D.S.P.,Headquarter, who had observed in his report dated 21.9.2009 that the petitioner and husband of the complainant had a quarrel on the road in which her husband had suffered injuries.
He also observed that no offence under Section 376, 511 and 452 IPC is made out except offence under Sections 324 , 323 and 34 IPC against the petitioner and his son. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for bail before the Court below which was declined by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mansa, vide his order dated 06.10.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that challan has already been presented and there is no other case registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel relies upon a decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Jai Chand Vs. State 1996 (2) Recent CR 244 to contend that no offence under Sections 376/511 IPC is made CRM.M 28778 of 2009 3 out even if the FIR is to be read as it is because the petitioner is not alleged to have attempted to undress himself. He also relies upon a decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Hari Mohapatra and another Vs.
Operative part
State of Orissa and others 1996 Crl.L.J. 2952 in which it has been held that if the allegations are that the accused had entered to room, closed the door and molested the victim by squeezing her breast and tried to open her pants , such an act is relatable to stage of preparation alone and does not fall within expression 'attempt' . On the other hand, learned State Counsel has argued that the report of DSP, Headquarter which has been relied upon by the petitioner has not been approved. He though admits that challan has been presented in the Court and there is no other case registered against the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without observing anything on the merits, the regular bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Mansa. Nov 27,2009 RR (Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: anything on the merits, the regular bail petition is allowed and the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 323, 324, 376, 452, 511.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 27 Nov 2009. The bench was RAKESH KUMAR JAIN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.