VIJENDER SINGH MALIK - (1.) SANJAY Kumar, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 104 dated 7.7.2011 at Police Station Ding, District Sirsa for an offence punishable under sections 354, 366-A, 376(2)(g), 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code.
(2.) IT is a case of kidnapping and rape of the minor daughter of the complainant, Smt. Devi Rani. As per the prosecutrix, as told to the complainant, Dharshana wife of Om Parkash came to her house and took the prosecutrix to the house of her relative Ballu Ram where she left her on the pretext of going to market to buy something. At the house of Ballu Ram, Sonu, Naresh and Sanjay were there and Sonu tried to .. molest her. When she resisted, he promised to marry her. Thereafter Sonu committed rape upon her without her consent. Naresh and Sanjay are also claimed to have committed rape thereafter. They are also said to have taken some indecent photographs of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR in this case is inordinately delayed. According to him, the main accused of the case was Sonu, who being a juvenile was granted regular bail. He has further submitted that the FIR has been lodged after due deliberations as also after obtaining legal advice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the statement of Dr. Veerinderdeep (PW-1) recorded at the trial who has claimed that possibility of no intercourse in case of the prosecutrix cannot be ruled out. According to him, the petitioner is in custody since 9.7.2011. He has further submitted that the police has found Naresh, a co-accused of the petitioner innocent during investigation. He has, thus, submitted that for these reasons, the petitioner is entitled to bail. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application. According to him, in matters of this nature, delay in lodging the FIR is natural and does not matter much. He has submitted that the offence of rape can be committed even without rupture of hymen. I have gone through the statement of Dr. Veerinderdeep. The evidence of a doctor in such cases is opinion evidence. In the case in hand, she has on the one hand stated that possibility of no intercourse can be ruled out and on the other hand, she has stated that possibility of rape cannot be ruled out even if the hymen is intact. .. A minor girl, who has been raped and whose indecent photographs have been taken, would be reluctant to make the matter public. Her parents would also think several times before lodging a report. Moreover, the aspect of delay in lodging the FIR would be considered by learned trial court after taking evidence. In what circumstances, the investigating agency found Naresh to be innocent would also be considered at the trial. However, for this very reason, it cannot be said that the petitioner is also innocent.
(3.) IN these circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.;