SUNIL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A case by way of FIR No.278 dated 15.08.2018 under Sections 323, 376(3), 376(D), 366, 366-A, 376-DA, 511, 506 IPC and sections 4 and 18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 pertaining to Police Station Madhuban, Karnal was got registered against accused non-applicants Rai Singh alias Sonu, Vishal, Rinku, Naveen and Neeraj, and during the course of trial upon application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C, the accused petitioner Sunil was summoned as an additional accused by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for the Cases of Heinous Crime against Women, Karnal vide order dated 22.08.2019. Petitioner Sunil apprehending his arrest has come up before this Court in this first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

(2.) It was on the complaint of father of an unmarried girl alleging that on 14.08.2018 at night around 11:30 p.m. accused petitioner along with his co-accused non-applicants Sonu, Rinku and Vishal, all residents of village Barsat and one Neeraj resident of Jamalpur, came to their house in a car bearing registration No.HR-05A-4781 and tried to take away the unmarried daughter of the complainant. On hearing footsteps, the family woke up and apprehended accused Neeraj while the other managed to escape. It was subsequently on the statement of the girl, it came forth that while the victim was residing at her maternal uncle's house in village Barsat, all the accused used to stalk her and during that time while she was a minor, managed to entrap her and all of them defiled her one by one and also prepared a video of the episode. It was on the basis of this video, as has been claimed by the victim, the accused had been blackmailing her and under this pressure she used to oblige each of the accused as and when they wanted, and who kept on threatening her that they would put the video on net and that is how the present case has come about.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Manoj Kumar Taya, Advocate inter alia contends that the petitioner was found innocent and has been subsequently summoned with the aid of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and therefore his custodial interrogation is not necessary and his co-accused have already been allowed bail.