NASEEM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No.52 dated 26.05.2017 (in final report date of FIR is mentioned as 25.05.2017) under Sections 376-D and 506 IPC as well as Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Women Police Station Mewat, District Mewat.

(2.) The aforesaid FIR was registered at the behest of Rahit son of Abdul, who is father of the prosecutrix. As per the FIR, on 26.01.2017, when the prosecutrix had gone to the fields to fetch fodder, suddenly, Aamil son of Mubeen, Sakul son of Hameeda and Naseem son of Abdulla (petitioner herein) came inside their fields and nabbed the prosecutrix. Aamil and Sakul forcibly raped her and threatened that they have made a video clip of the incident and if she discloses the incident to anybody, they will make the video public. Thereafter, all the accused had physically exploited and threatened the prosecutrix on the pretext of video clip. The accused persons frequently used to call the prosecutrix on mobile No.8684860919 from their phone numbers 9991821788, 9050226722, 9050743238 and 9991270013. The family members of the accused were informed about the act of the accused. On 03.05.2017, the complainant along with his wife had gone to his in-laws' house for some work. On 04.05.2017 at about 12.00 P.M. in the afternoon, when the prosecutrix was alone at home, then Kadir son of Mubeen entered their house and tried to commit rape upon her forcibly and stated that Aamil son of Mubeen, Sakul son of Hameed and Naseem son of Abdulla had raped her and he would also rape her and if she stopped him from doing so, he will show the video film to the whole village. Thus, the prosecutrix and her parents would not be able to face anyone in the village. In the meanwhile, the complainant reached the spot, and on seeing him, accused Kadir son of Mubeen ran away from the spot and the prosecutrix narrated the whole incident to the complainant. Thereafter, talks of compromise were going in the village and, therefore, the complainant had not taken any legal action against the accused, but due to not reaching at any compromise in the community, now he wants to initiate legal action against the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged incident had taken place on 26.01.2017, whereas the present FIR was registered on 26.05.2017 i.e. after a delay of about 5 months. There is no such medical report available on record so as to establish the fact that even on 04.05.2017, the prosecutrix was subjected to rape. The prosecutrix is a married girl and the complainant despite being father of the prosecutrix had intentionally not disclosed this fact so as to sensitise the issue.

(3.) He has further contended that the petitioner is otherwise in custody since 25.09.2019. Even for the alleged second incident, which took place on 04.05.2017, the present FIR was registered on 26.05.2017. There is a civil litigation pending between the petitioner and the real uncle of the prosecutrix and it is in this background, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.