Bail plea rejected of an accused, convicted for molestation: High court of Punjab and Haryana  

 on 15 07 In virtual CourtCRM M 13016 2020 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARHCRM M 13016 2020aged about 05 years had gone out to play. The petitioner is hisneighbour. When his daughter came back she was crying and when his wifeSunita inquired from her as to why she is crying his daughter told that heruncleLala petitioner had bitten her face and removed her clothes and hadgiven threat to her if she discloses anything about the same he would kill her.After registration of the FIR statement of the victim was recorded which readsas under: “Stated that yesterday Lala took me to his house and he bitten myprivate part and also bitten my mouth face. He told me not todisclose about it to your mother. Not told to your uncle. I will giveyou groundnut and money. There is pain in my private part. Lalais having big teeth. Lala used to consume liquor daily.”Similar statement was recorded by the victim under Section 164Cr.P.C.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there wassome money dispute between the petitioner and the complainant and on thataccount he has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel has relied upon certain on 15 07 In virtual CourtCRM M 13016 2020 3 telephonic conversation between the complainant and one Gopi Ram to submitthat the complainant is demanding some money. Certain affidavits of thevillagers are also filed to submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated.It is further submitted that even on an earlier occasion Sunita wife ofcomplainant Chetram had levelled allegations against her brother in lawRajender that he used to tease her and later on she compromised the matter. Itis also submitted that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year and 07months and therefore he may be granted the concession of regular bail.Learned State counsel has however opposed the prayer for bail onthe ground that as per MLR of the victim her ocular version finds support asthe doctor has reported it as a case with history of physical molestation andthere was slight redness over the right cheek however no bruise or no cut markwere visible. In the examination of Female Genitalia the doctor noticed asbelow: “Labia Majora: Multiple pin point piteche mark present overlabia majora lt side slight redness over labia majora.”Learned State counsel thus submits that the MLR do not suggestthat it is a case of false implication and till the time statement of the victim orthe complainant is recorded the petitioner is not entitled to regular bail.After hearing learned counsel for the parties I find that thedocuments affidavits and conversation relied upon by learned counsel for thepetitioner are to be seen during the course of trial however considering the on 15 07 In virtual CourtCRM M 13016 2020 4 allegations in the FIR wherein it is stated that the victim is a girl aged about 05years and also in view of her MLR no ground to grant regular bail to thepetitioner is made out.Accordingly the present petition is dismissed. [ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]14.07.2021 JUDGEvishnuWhether speaking reasoned: Yes NoWhether Reportable: Yes No 

Summary: A petition was filed under section 439 of CrPC for the grant of regular bail. The petitioner was convicted under section 354 IPC, “Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty”. 506 IPC, “Punishment for criminal intimidation – threat be to cause death or grievous hurt” and section 10 of the POCSO act, “Punishment for aggravated sexual assault ”, on the 23rd of December 2019 in FIR No. 320 registered at the police station Hassanpur in the district of Palwal. This Judgment and final order were given in the high court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on the 14th of July 2021 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan in the case of Ranbir @ Lala v/s state of Haryana CRM-M-13016-2020. Mr. Pardeep Virk represented the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Kumar represented the state of Haryana. According to the allegations against the petitioner filed in the FIR, the following are the facts of the case, The petitioner’s brother’s daughter, that is the niece of the petitioner. She is aged five years and had gone out to play, the petitioner lived in the same neighborhood, when the daughter came back home she was crying and when she was asked why the little girl confessed that her uncle(petitioner) had bitten her face and removed her clothes and threatened her that he would kill her if she would disclose the same and he also bribed the little girl with groundnut and money and asked her not to tell her mother. In the FIR, the statement of the victim that Lala (petitioner) has bad teeth and consumed liquor daily, it was all recorded under section 164 CrPC. The mother of the victim also claimed that her brother-in-law used to tease her on an earlier occasion. However, according to the petitioner’s counsel, he submitted that there has been some money conflict between the petitioner and his brother(complainant), which is why his brother falsely implicated such a matter. He submitted certain evidence before the court stating a telephone conversation between the complainant and another person regarding the same. The counsel also submitted certain affidavits of the villagers who indicated that the petitioner has been falsely framed. He submitted that the petitioner was held in custody for one year and seven months and therefore request for regular bail is made before the court. The counsel for the state opposed the prayer for bail on the grounds as per the Medical-legal report of the child, where the doctor stated physical molestation and redness over the right cheek of the child. The counsel based on the medical report stated that the petitioner is not entitled to regular bail. The court agreed with the state and rejected the plea for regular bail for the petitioner.