SUNIL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE the present order, all the three Criminal Misc. petitions captioned above are being disposed of since the same are arising out of one and the same FIR and the common prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioners has been made. Prayer in these petitions are for grant of regular bail to petitioners, Sunil, Kuldeep @ Musha, Dharmender @ Mahender and Anil @ Lila who have been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34, IPC and Section 3(I)(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,(for brevity "the Act") in a case arising out of FIR No. 752, dated 19.09.2012, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Hisar.

(2.) LEARNED Senior counsel contends that according to the allegations, gang rape was committed on the daughter of the complainant on 09.09.2012. The complainant and her husband, Krishan Kumar (deceased), acquired the knowledge with regard to the commission of gang rape on 18.09.2012 and thereafter, Krishan Kumar (deceased) and victim were going to the police station to lodge the report and in the way, the petitioners and their co -accused obstructed Krishan Kumar and the victim from proceeding to the police station due to which, Krishan Kumar committed suicide. A separate case for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g), IPC, was registered vide FIR No. 753 dated 19.09.2012 at Police Station, Sadar, Hisar. He further submits that the petitioners and their co -accused were tried for the commission of gang rape. The victim and her mother appeared as witnesses but the petitioners were not named as an accused in the said case and hence, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 03.05.2013 (Annexure P -2) acquitted the petitioners. The petitioners were also put to trial for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34, IPC and Section 3 of the Act and in spite of the several adjournments and in spite of issuance of bailable warrants the complainant and her daughter (victim) have failed to appear before the learned trial court. Learned Senior counsel submits that it was held by the learned trial court that the petitioners had not committed the offence of gang rape, in that eventuality, there was no occasion for the petitioners to have stopped Krishan Kumar (husband of the complainant) to go to the police station for lodging the report with regard to commission of gang rape with his daughter and as such, the ingredients of Section 306, IPC and Section 3 of the Act are not attracted against the petitioners. The learned counsel representing the other petitioners have also adopted the arguments raised by the learned Senior counsel.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.