BIJENDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.44 dtd. 16/2/2021, under Ss. 376, 452, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Ateli, District Mahendergarh, Haryana.

(2.) Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the prosecutrix, who is 57 years of age, lodged the present FIR, wherein, it was alleged that she was doing household work on 15/2/2021 and cooking food at 10 pm, then Bijender i.e. the petitioner, came to her residence in a drunken condition. He bolted the door and after entering the house, took her into the room and raped her forcibly. When she resisted and made noise then he threatened her to kill her. Her husband was not present at home. After returning of her husband, she narrated the whole incident to him and thereafter, the present FIR was lodged. The petitioner was arrested on 16/2/2021. He approached learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul for grant of bail and the same was declined after hearing the parties vide order dtd. 30/7/2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition for grant of bail.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner is 37 years of age and in relation, is nephew of the complainant. He submits that the prosecutrix is an elder lady and the bare reading of the allegations would show that the allegations are totally false and frivolous and has been levelled against the petitioner deliberately in order to implicate the petitioner in a henious offence. He vehemently contends that after lodging of the FIR, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. on 16/2/2021 and in comparison of the same with the initial version of FIR, same is totally different and the improved version. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to the medical conducted of the prosecutrix and he lay emphasis on the complete report appended. He asserts that the ocular verison of the prosecutrix is not at all medically corroborated as no conclusion regarding resistence offered by the prosecutrix can be inferred from the same. He submits that this Court time and again requested the trial Court to examine the prosecutrix but the zimni order produced would show that despite having been granted five opportunities by the trial Court, the prosecutrix is not coming forward to depose before the trial Court. He submits that the conduct of the prosecutrix would show that the petitioner was falsely implicated and now she is trying her level best to prolong the trial in order to keep the petitioner behind the bars.