SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SANJAY Kumar, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 104 dated 7.7.2011 at Police Station Ding, District Sirsa for an offence punishable under sections 354, 366-A, 376(2)(g), 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IT is a case of kidnapping and rape of the minor daughter of the complainant, Smt. Devi Rani. As per the prosecutrix, as told to the complainant, Dharshana wife of Om Parkash came to her house and took the prosecutrix to the house of her relative Ballu Ram where she left her on the pretext of going to market to buy something. At the house of Ballu Ram, Sonu, Naresh and Sanjay were there and Sonu tried to .. molest her. When she resisted, he promised to marry her. Thereafter Sonu committed rape upon her without her consent. Naresh and Sanjay are also claimed to have committed rape thereafter. They are also said to have taken some indecent photographs of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR in this case is inordinately delayed. According to him, the main accused of the case was Sonu, who being a juvenile was granted regular bail. He has further submitted that the FIR has been lodged after due deliberations as also after obtaining legal advice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the statement of Dr. Veerinderdeep (PW-1) recorded at the trial who has claimed that possibility of no intercourse in case of the prosecutrix cannot be ruled out. According to him, the petitioner is in custody since 9.7.2011. He has further submitted that the police has found Naresh, a co-accused of the petitioner innocent during investigation. He has, thus, submitted that for these reasons, the petitioner is entitled to bail. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application. According to him, in matters of this nature, delay in lodging the FIR is natural and does not matter much. He has submitted that the offence of rape can be committed even without rupture of hymen.

(3.) IN these circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.