ROHIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for bail pending trial in FIR No. 2 dated 02.01.2016 under Sections 363/366A IPC (the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC, section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were added later), registered at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana.

(2.) It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The alleged victim, her mother as well as the complainant have since testified before the learned trial court. They have not supported the prosecution case. The said witnesses have refused to identify the petitioner as the accused person. Therefore, this petition be allowed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Dhanwant Singh, verifies that the complainant, his wife as well as their daughter (the victim) have not supported the prosecution version. They have indeed refused to identify the petitioner as the accused. The petitioner, it is verified, is not involved in any other case.