HAPPY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Happy has filed the present petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of regular bail to him in case FIR No.522 dated 25.11.2016 under Sections 364, 365, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Ganaur, Distt. Sonipat, during pendency of the trial.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the FIR was registered under Section 365 IPC as the allegations were that the brother of the complainant was missing since 21.11.2016. Later on offences under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC were also added. Name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated. There is no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence. The FIR was lodged with delay as the alleged occurrence is stated to have occurred on 21.11.2016 but the FIR was registered on 25.11.2016 and no explanation thereof has been given. Petitioner was declared as juvenile in conflict with law. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. No specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. Nothing is to be recovered from him. He is in custody since 15.12.2016. The investigation has been completed and challan has also been presented. His custodial interrogation is not required. Learned counsel further submits that the application for bail filed by the petitioner before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat has been dismissed on the ground that he was involved in a case of rape, whereas he has been acquitted in that case vide judgment dated 13.07.2018. No purpose would be served by keeping him in custody.

(3.) Learned State counsel has not disputed the period of custody undergone by the petitioner as well as the factum of his acquittal in the other case of rape. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is a juvenile and his name is not mentioned in the FIR. The factum of delay in lodging of FIR is also not disputed.