In CRM-9355-2023-PUNJ HC- Victim in her statement u/s 164 CrPC has not attributed any allegation against appellant, says P&H HC while granting bail to man booked for procuring minor girl
Justice Vivek Puri [03-03-2023]

Read Order:  AJIT SONI @ KALIYA vs STATE OF PUNJAB

LE Correspondent

Chandigarh, March 4, 2023: While observing that the conclusion of the trial was likely to take some time as only eleven witnesses were examined out of twenty one and also sufficient mitigating circumstances were made out, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man who was booked for committing offence of procuration of minor girl.

The  present appeal was preferred by the appellant  assailing  the order dated December 6, 2021  passed by the Court of Sessions vide which the application for regular bail was  dismissed. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Puri disposed of the present appeal by observing that no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the appellant in further custody. 

Counsel for the appellant contended that although, the victim attributed the allegations of commission of penetrative sexual assault upon the appellant in her statement recorded during the course of trial but the said version did not find mention in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C

On the contrary, the State opposed the bail application on the score that the victim during the course of trial has attributed allegation of commission of penetrative sexual assault. 

After considering the rival contentions from both the sides, the Court opined, “Be that as it may that the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C has not been attributed any allegation against the appellant. The evidentiary value of the statement recorded during the course of trial is to be adjudicated at the appropriate stage of trial”. 

In furtherance of the same,   the Court noted that no spermatozoa/male DNA was detected from the vaginal swabs of the victim. The appellant was in custody for a period of 2 years and 19 days. It was also pointed out by the State counsel that out of 20, 11 witnesses were examined so far. 

As the conclusion of the trial was likely to take some time, the Court was of the considered view that no fruitful purpose would have been served by detaining the appellant in further custody. As such, sufficient mitigating circumstances were made out to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner, the Court further remarked. 

Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the appellant was ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.