SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS Sanjeev Kumar and Anil Kumar, both brothers, have filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in a complaint/protest petition filed by respondent No. 2.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case due to the old enmity between the parties. They are neighbourers in the village. While referring to the MLR, counsel contends that no injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix and as per the FSL report, no semen could be detected on any of the exhibits i.e. Pyjama, pubic hair, vaginal swabs and slides. Counsel for the petitioners refers to the cancellation report submitted by the police, in which it has been found that on the day of occurrence, prosecutrix was found standing alone on the gate of Ply Factory in the area of Mali Majra and the Chowkidar gave a telephone call to the police. Thereupon, the police came and took the girl to Police Station, from where the complainant, who is her father, took her. As per the aforesaid complaint, the prosecutrix went 160 yards away from the house to answer the call of nature. It has not been explained why she went outside her house. During the police investigation, it was found that the allegation of forcibly abducting the prosecutrix by the accused in the mid night from her house which is situated in the middle of the village was found to be false. Statements of various persons were recorded during the investigation and none of them supported version of the complainant. Counsel for the petitioners further contends that there is an old rivalry between the complainant and family of the petitioners. He contends that the complainant's real brother, namely Rajender Kumar, had contested the election for the post of Sarpanch against Krishan Lal, real uncle of the petitioners, and lost the same. Counsel further contends that as a matter of fact, marriage of petitioner No. 1 was to be solemnized on 6.3.2005 with the real cousin of the prosecutrix and with a view to obstruct the said marriage, a false complaint was filed by the complainant.