HARNEK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first petition under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No.144 dtd. 5/6/2021, registered under Ss. 363 and 366-A IPC (Sec. 376-DA IPC and Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 have been added later on), at Police Station Anaj Mandi, District Patiala.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 13/6/2021 and out of total 19 prosecution witnesses, only 4 have been examined and 15 witnesses are yet to be examined, thus, the trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and even in the statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., which was recorded after a period of six days from the FIR, the petitioner who is a relative of the co-accused, namely, Harwinder Singh, has not been named. It has also been argued that as per the statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., it has been stated by the prosecutrix that she had left the house on her own will and met co-accused Harwinder Singh, who had taken her to Rajgarh. It is further submitted that although, the petitioner was not named in the statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. by the prosecutrix which was recorded on 11/6/2021, but in the statement under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., which was also recorded on 11/6/2021, it was stated that the second unnamed boy was Ajay and it is the case of the prosecution that the said Ajay is the present petitioner. It is also contended that a perusal of the CFSL report dtd. 12/11/2021 (Annexure P-10) would show that although, the presence of human semen has been confirmed on the exhibits which were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, but it was concluded that the male DNA profile recovered from the swabs and nail clippings of the prosecutrix was consistent with the DNA profile of co-accused Harwinder Singh @ Happy and the genetic contribution of the present petitioner was not found on the swabs and nail clippings of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the prosecutrix has already been examined and thus, no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further incarceration.

(3.) Learned State counsel on the other hand has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that in the present case, the girl is a minor and even in the statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., she had stated that apart from co-accused Harwinder Singh, there was another boy, who had committed forcible acts with her. It is further submitted that the said prosecutrix has been examined as PW-2 and she has named the second boy as the present petitioner.