ROHTASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 181 dated 6.12.2010 registered under Sections 323, 376, 506 IPC at Police Station Farrukh Nagar, District Gurgaon.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The husband of the prosecutrix had taken a room on the first floor of the house of the petitioner on rent. As there was some dispute, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. The petitioner is in custody since 6.12.2010. He further submitted that 11 out of 12 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Since July, 2011, the case is being adjourned for recording the statement of the prosecutrix. All efforts made by the investigating agency to get her statement recorded remained fruitless as her service is not being effected. On 22.10.2011, the learned court below had recorded that the prosecutrix is the only witness, which remained to be examined. Summons were issued to her for the last so many dates. However, those were returned unserved with the report that she was not found at the given address. The residents of the area told to the police officials, who had gone to serve summons, that they have never seen her. However, still fresh summons were issued for her presence in court for 9.11.2011 and it was recorded in the order that in case she is not served, the court will have no option but to close the evidence of the prosecution. Copy of the order was also sent to the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon. Still the service of the prosecutrix was not complete. On 11.11.2011, the learned court below recorded that when the ASI had gone to effect the service of summons upon the prosecutrix, father of the husband of the prosecutrix, namely, Moti Lal Yadav, his brother Mahesh Yadav and Sarpanch of the village Surajpur were called. Their statements were recorded. Ramdhan, husband of the petitioner was also present. From the statements it transpired that Ramdhan had not told his parents and fellow villagers about his marriage. The prosecutrix was living in some slum area in Lucknow before her marriage. Residents and Sarpanch of the village told that the prosecutrix was not brought to the village and they have never seen her. Ramdhan told that after registration of the FIR he had left the prosecutrix in Haiderpur, Delhi, where his sister was residing. However, she left that place without telling anyone, for which a report has been lodged in Police Station Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Ramdhan further stated that he does not know the whereabouts of the prosecutrix. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecutrix is not appearing in the court for getting her statement recorded and further even her service is not being effected, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer imprisonment only for that reason.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made above and also the fact that despite numerous efforts to serve the prosecutrix, service of summons on her could not be effected; she is not appearing in the court to get her statement recorded; her husband is also saying that he is not aware of her whereabouts; a report regarding her missing from the house of his sister had been lodged in Police Station Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, in my opinion, the petitioner deserves concession of bail pending trial. He is directed to be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Gurgaon.