In CRA-S-2117-2022 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- In view of Article 21 of Constitution, accused has right to defend himself and put forth his stand: P&H HC
Justice Jagmohan Bansal  [14-03-2023]

Read Order: MUKUL ALIAS MINTU VS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

Mansimran Kaur

Chandigarh, March 15, 2023: As prosecution has the right to arrest, investigate the matter and restrain an accused from manipulating or winning over witnesses, similarly accused in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India has the right to defend himself and put forth his stand which cannot be possible while in custody, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed.

The appellant through instant appeal was  seeking setting aside of impugned order whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the regular bail application of the appellant in the trial arising out of FIR registered under  Sections 313, 376(2)(n) & 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. By dismissing the same, Justice Jagmohan Bansal observed that there was abysmally low possibility of conclusion of trial in near future in the instant case and hence no purpose would have been served in keeping the petitioner in custody.

The case of prosecution is that prosecutrix made a complaint to police  alleging that she came in contact with Mukul (appellant) son of Kapil Verma about 2 years ago and developed friendship with him. They used to talk on phone.He promised that he will marry her.  However, it was alleged  that  on August 20, 2020 , Mukul repeatedly raped her on the pretext of marriage and impregnated her.

 Mukul provided her some tablets through a friend Pankaj to abort the child. Mukul told her that he will talk to his parents about his marriage but he did not do so. She rang up father of Mukul and Mukul came to meet her on Feruary 4, 2022 and committed rape upon her forcibly without her consent. 

After considering the submissions from both the sides, the Court noted that in  the case in hand, the prosecutrix stands examined. In her examination as well as FIR, the allegation of prosecutrix was  that appellant  made physical relations with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage and now he was  not solemnizing marriage. The prosecutrix was major and she stands examined. She had  admitted in her cross examination that she had met appellant in Jail which prima facie shows that there was consensual relation between the parties. 

In furtherance of the same, the Court noted that the appellant was in custody since February 25 2022  and he was  not involved in any other offence. There were 12 prosecution witnesses and till date only 5 were  examined, thus, there was  abysmally low possibility of conclusion of trial in near future, the Court further noted . 

 “As prosecution has the right to arrest, investigate the matter and restrain an accused from manipulating or winning over witnesses, similarly accused in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India has the right to defend himself and put forth his stand which cannot be possible while in custody”, the Court further remarked. 

Hence, considering the aforestated facts and circumstances and judgments of the Top Court in Uday Versus State of Karnataka, Deelip Singh alias Dilip Kumar Versus State of Bihar,; Deepak Gulati Versus State of Haryana, Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Versus State of Maharashtra and Others, the Bench allowed the appeal.