HANNU SINGH Vs. RAJU @ RAJESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 439(2) of the Code Criminal Procedure has been filed by Hannu Singh father of the prosecutrix for cancellation of bail granted to Raju alias Rajesh respondent by the Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide his order dated 25-7-1992 in FIR No. 192 dated 28-6-1992 under Section 354/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code registered at the Police Station Nuh District Gurgaon.

(2.) THE case was registered against Raju respondent on the statement of Phoolwati who deposed that she was present at her house on 28-6-1992 when she sent her daughter Urmila aged 8 years to the house of Jand Raj son of Chander Rajput at about 8/9 a.m. to bring some articles. After 15-20 minutes her daughter returned. She was crying and she disclosed that Raju had taken her to the T.V. room and tried to commit rape. The incident was narrated to Hannu Singh father of the child as well as to the panchayat and then the case was got registered.

(3.) THE petition was resisted by respondent No. 1 namely Raju who in his reply maintained that a false case was registered against him after inordinate delay. His medico-legal examination did not reveal any injury and Medico Legal Report of Urmila also did not show any injury on her private parts except superficial abrasion. The hymen was found intact and no offence under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. Learned Sessions Judge after taking into consideration different important aspects of the matter including non-availability of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, allowed him bail and the discretion vested in him was exercised in a judicial manner. His earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn and there was no bar to move a fresh bail application. He further alleged that he was a B.A. B.Ed and was preparing for his M.A. examination. He was a Mathematics teacher in Jat High School, Sonepat where he was also Warden of a Hostel. He was never involved in any criminal case earlier and this case was got registered against him due to family enmity. He never threatened the complainant nor asked her to withdraw the case. He was not present in the village on 13-8-1992 when it was alleged that he threatened the complainant.