NAVEEN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 385 dated 18.07.2017, under Sections 363, 366-A, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Yamuna Nagar City, District Yamuna Nagar.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that a reading of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 would reflect that niece of the complainant had voluntarily left her residential home and she wanted to get married to the petitioner. Even in the statement that has been recorded before the court, she has categorically stated that she had left her home voluntarily and afterwards had called the petitioner and thereafter went to Haridwar and solemnize a marriage there. It is argued that statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded and trial is likely to take some time to conclude, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, opposes the grant of regular bail, while submitting that the offences alleged against the petitioner are serious in nature.