GURFAN ALI @ GUFRAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Gurfan Ali @ Gufran, son of Rhmtula, resident of Nag Talai, Jaipur, presently resident of Kachha Camp, Panipat, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, IPC, and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in a case arising out of FIR No. 369, dated 23.5.2014, registered at Police Station, Model Town, Panipat.

(2.) Learned counsel contends that initially the FIR was registered for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366-A, IPC, only at the behest of the father of the prosecutrix with the allegations that 19.5.2014 at about 10:00 a.m. his daughter (prosecutrix) had gone for taking classes of cloth stitching etc., but she did not come back. After hectic search, it was learnt that his daughter was enticed away by the petitioner for solemnizing the marriage with her. On 26.5.2014, the petitioner and the prosecutrix were intercepted by the police. The prosecutrix was produced before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate for getting her statement recorded in terms of Section 164, Cr.P.C. She suffered the following statement:-

(3.) Similar statement was suffered by the prosecutrix before the Legal Aid Counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the prosecutrix even refused for getting herself medically examined. It has also been contended that as per the Aadhaar Card (Annexure P-7) issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India, the prosecutrix was born in the year 1996 and, as such, she was major on the date of occurrence. He further submits that later on under the pressure of her family members, the prosecutrix took a somersault and stated that the petitioner had a sex with her. He further contends that the prosecutrix is now residing at the house of the petitioner with his family members since she had solemnized marriage with the petitioner. He further contends that the petitioner is neither required nor involved in any other case and the trial would take sufficient long time to conclude.