RAVI RANDHAWA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 283 dated 02.11.2019. registered under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 212, 120-B IPC and under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station City Tarn Taran.

(2.) Fir in this case was registered on 02.11.2019 on the basis of statement made by father of prosecutrix, wherein he informed about missing of his daughter, aged 15 years since 01.11.2019, who had gone to school but did not return. Her whereabouts could not be ascertained despite concerted efforts. He suspected that his daughter had been enticed away by Ravi Randhawa, the petitioner/accused. FIR was registered. Prosecutrix was recovered while in the company of petitioner. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded. Her medical was done. The petitioner was arrested.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prosecutrix and petitioner were/are having a love affair. The same is not acceptable to the family of the complainant. As a result, she of her own will joined the company of the petitioner. There was no sexual activity during the period she remained in the company of petitioner. While referring to the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide which the application of the petitioner for regular was rejected, learned counsel contends that there is no dispute to the fact that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. prosecutrix herself had voluntarily stated that she had joined the company of the petitioner, a young boy of 21 years, on her own free will and she remained in the company of petitioner for three days. But she nowhere makes any complaint about any sexual activity being done with her during this period.