SONU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard through video conferencing.

(2.) This is the second petition under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.0074 dtd. 1/4/2021 under Ss. 354-D, 452, 506, 376, 511, 376-D and 354-A read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Ss. 4 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station Lakhan Majra, District Rohtak. The first petition for regular bail being CRM-M-20984-2021 was dismissed as withdrawn on 2/6/2021.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He contended that as per the version in the FIR, on the night of 15/3/2021 at about 10.30 p.m., co- accused Naveen committed rape upon the prosecutrix. The only allegation against the petitioner is that on 31/3/2021 he along with co-accused, Rohit and Naveen, entered the house of the prosecutrix. However, co-accused Naveen, and not the petitioner, attempted to commit an unnatural act with the prosecutrix. In her statement, the prosecutrix has, however, stated that the co-accused Naveen entered the house whereas Rohit and the petitioner remained outside the house and further that when co-accused Naveen attempted to commit rape upon her, she raised an alarm and on raising the alarm, co-accused, Rohit and Naveen managed to run away from the spot while the present petitioner was apprehended by the neighbourers. As per counsel, according to the custody certificate the petitioner was arrested on 3/4/2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed to the cross-examination of the prosecutrix wherein she has stated that it is for the first time that she has seen Sonu (petitioner) in the Court. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not involved in the incident of 15/3/2021. Even on 31/3/2021 the allegation against the petitioner is that he came to the house of the prosecutrix but remained outside.