RAJPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.210 dated 21.07.2019 registered under Sections 328, 376, 506 of IPC at Police Station Farrukhnagar, District Gurugram.

(2.) The aforesaid FIR was registered at the behest of the prosecutrix. As per the FIR, the prosecutrix was doing beldari work with the petitioner, a Contractor, who is in her distant relations, for the last about 7-8 years. She had gone to the house of the petitioner to take her balance wages. However, on reaching the house, the prosecutrix was informed by the wife of the petitioner that he (petitioner) had gone to Village Joniyawas for some work. After verifying the address of the petitioner, she had gone to Village Joniyawas and accordingly, she reached in the house of Ved Pal Yadav where she met with the petitioner and another boy. While she was talking with the petitioner, the other boy left the place. On the pretext of showing her the house allegedly constructed by the petitioner, he took her to the first floor of the house where he started molesting her and committed rape on her by force and under threat. The petitioner had already consumed liquor and the prosecutrix was also made to consume liquor. However, when she regained consciousness, she found her salwar open and felt that she was sexually ravished by the petitioner. In this manner, she reported the matter to the police.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 22.07.2019. The prosecutrix is a married lady. The FSL/DNA report in the case has not yet been received. Merely because the MLR findings are suggestive of the fact that the prosecutrix had been sexually assaulted recently, cannot be used against the petitioner more particularly when the prosecutrix is a married lady. He has further argued that in fact the dispute between the petitioner and the prosecutrix is as regard the payment of wages and it is for this reason, she has falsely implicated the petitioner.