NACHHATTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.239 dated 30.08.2020, at Police Station Samana, District Patiala, under Sections 376, 511, 342, 120-B IPC and Sections 12 and 18 of the POCSO Act.

(2.) The FIR was lodged at the instance of the prosecutrix, aged about 15 years, wherein it is alleged that she resides with her aunt (bud) Parwinder Kaur and that another of her aunt (mami) namely Ajit Kaur also resides with them. Since her mama (maternal uncle) Amrik Singh is a drunkard, therefore, her mami Ajit Kaur frequently visited Baba ji. It is alleged that one lady had recommended to her maternal aunt that Baba Harjinder Singh could treat and get rid of all her miseries and on account of which complainant's mami got acquainted with Baba Harjinder. It is alleged that Baba Harjinder asked her mami to get some unmarried girl so as to appease "Devi Mata". Being taken in by the said representation, her aunt agreed to take the complainant to said Baba. Baba Harjinder Singh informed that he along with Darshan Singh, ex-Sarpanch, would pick them up in a car. Consequently, the complainant, her bua (paternal aunt) Parwinder Kaur and her mami (maternal aunt) went with them to Kissan Feed Factory where the owner of the factory namely Suresh @ Pappi was also present and the said three persons took them inside and closed the door of the factory. It is alleged that Darshan Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, Baba Harjinder Singh, Nachhattar Singh and Davinderpal Singh took the complainant inside a room wherein one unknown person, who was being addressed as Baba ji was present. The said Baba sent Darshan Singh and Harjinder Singh out of the room and bolted the room from inside and asked the complainant to take off her shirt and upon her refusal, forcibly took off her shirt and also the trouser and started touching her in an obscene manner and attempted to establish physical relations with her. The complainant however, pushed the Baba aside and ran out of the room. It is alleged that thereafter by making an excuse, they went away from the factory. Subsequently, they came to know the name of said Baba as Akram Khan.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that even if the contents of the FIR are taken to be correct, still no overt act is attributed to the petitioner and it is the Baba Akram Khan who is alleged to have made an attempt to commit rape upon the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that when the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-3), she did not state a word against the petitioner and in fact there is no mention of the petitioner anywhere in the said statement.