PARSHANT PATHAK ALIAS MICKY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-accused seeks bail in case bearing FIR No. 262 dated 2.9.2001 registered under Sections 366, 368, 376, 506, 120-B, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur.

(2.) THE present case was registered on the statement of prosecutrix (name withheld). She is unmarried. Her elder sister is married in Village Purkian, District Hoshiarpur. On 4.8.2001, the prosecutrix had gone to Village Purkian, Hoshiarpur in order to tie Rakhi to the son of her sister. After tying the Rakhi, she started her return journey to her village. While she was standing on the Bye-pass near Phaglana Chowk at about 3.30 p.m. a Maruti van stopped there. It was driven by a Sikh boy of 35-40 years. Rajinder Kumar, Balwinder Thakur alias Sonu and one more boy named Micky alighted from the van. Rajinder Kumar was holding a pistol like object in his hand. Rajinder Kumar scared her with that object. She tried to raise alarm but Balwinder Thakur alias Sonu and Micky gagged her mouth with a piece of cloth and forcibly put her in the van. The van was taken to Chandigarh. She was locked in a room. Thereafter, Rajinder Kumar remained with her while his co-accused left that place. She had been taken by Rajinder Kumar and other accused in order to forcibly marry her with him. Bhajno and Dharam Singh, mother and father of Rajinder had also visited her in the room where she was confined. They forcibly put Chura in her hands though she never wanted to marry Rajinder Kumar as he was already married and was having four children. Rajinder Kumar kept on raping the prosecutrix in that room. After some days she escaped from there and reached her home. She narrated the entire incident to her mother, father, sister and other members of the family. Thereafter her statement was recorded which led to the registration of the present case.

(3.) ANOTHER circumstance which was highlighted by him is that at no stage father of the prosecutrix lodged any report with regard to the missing of the prosecutrix which is unexplainable circumstance because she is stated to have been kidnapped on 4.8.2001 while her father or any other member of her family never reported about this incident to any police authority and it is only after she was recovered, that the present concocted story came to the recorded on 2.9.2001. With the above background it was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that name of petitioner was introduced in the report lodged on 2.9.2001 and in her statement which was recorded for the first time under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 4.9.2001 and these circumstances should not be made the basis to deny the concession of bail to the petitioner.