MALKHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above-mentioned crl. misc. petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The private respondents in these cases, viz. Sat Ram son of Shamal and Dalle alias Dalbir son of Sheesh Ram are accused in connection with F.I.R. No. 281 dated 6.11.1996, registered at Police Station Chhainsa, District Faridabad, for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. They were granted bail by different orders by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Hence, the father of the prosecutrix has filed this petition for cancellation of bail.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Anil Walia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjiv Sheoran, Advocate, for the State and Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, learned counsel for the private respondents.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the private respondents ought not to have been granted bail, and, therefore, bail granted to them be cancelled. The case that is obvious from the F.I.R. is that the prosecutrix was forcibly taken to the fields of maize belonging to her uncle by the accused and that they put her duppatta forcibly into her mouth to keep her mouth shut and tied a belt around her neck and committed rape on her. The reasons stated in the application for cancellation of bail are that :