From The Courts

July 25, 2020

Gangarape Accused Bail DNA Punjab Haryana HC


[ by Legal Era News Network ]

Punjab-and-Haryana-High-Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court while denying bail to a gangrape accused observed that merely because the DNA report of the rape victim does not match with that of the petitioner’s, it cannot be termed to be a circumstance to conclude that the petitioner is not involved in the crime.

Justice Vivek Puri was hearing via video conferencing a bail application filed by Naveen who was booked for offences under Sections 342, 363, 366 A, 376 D and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 6 and 7 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station-Women Police Station, Charkhi Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri.

According to the complainant father, during the intervening night of May 3 and May 4, 2018 between 12 afternoon to 2 am, his daughter had come to his shop to provide tea. While returning back, she was kidnapped by one Bir Singh, Naveen (the petitioner) and an unknown boy. The complainant had tried to trace her and found her in a room, with all the boys present. The victim had alleged that she was subjected to gang rape by the aforesdai three persons and one Sonu. Moreover, they had threatened to kill her, if she disclosed the incident to anyone.

Petitioner’s counsel Advocate VP Sanghwan contended that his client was found innocent during the course of investigation and had in fact been summoned under Section 319 CrPC. Also, co-accused Sonu has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court. Furthermore, the DNA report of the victim does not match with the petitioner, Sanghwan submitted.

AAG Dimple Jain argued that the case of the petitioner was not at par with that of Sonu. Moreover, it is a case of gang rape and that the petitioner has been summoned under Section 319 CrPC as the victim had levelled specific and categoric allegations with regard to commission of gang rape against her. Also, the order dated 07.01.2019, vide which the petitioner has been summoned, has also been upheld by this Court, vide order dated 09.07.2019, AAG Jain submitted.

Court observed-

"It is a case of gang rape and merely because the DNA report does not match with the petitioner cannot be termed to be a circumstance to conclude that the petitioner is not involved in the crime.

In her statement recorded during the course of trial, the victim has specifically and categorically identified Bir Singh and Naveen, though she has denied the implication of Sonu, co-accused.

Merely because the petitioner was found innocent during the investigation cannot be construed as a mitigating circumstance to extend concession of bail"

Thus, Court concluded that no ground is made out to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner.



Related Post

latest News

  • S&R Associates represented IRB Infrastructure Developers Limited

    S&R Associates represented IRB Infrastructure Developers Limited (“IRB”), one of India’s largest private roads and highways infrastructure devel...

    Read More
  • Apple to pay $18mn as settlement for FaceTime lawsuit

    Apple has agreed an $18 million deal to settle a class-action lawsuit in California that accused the tech giant of intentionally breaking FaceTime on ...

    Read More
  • Insolvency against Raheja Developers halted, Board to manage

    In a major relief for the promoters of realty group Raheja Developers, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has halted the insolvency p...

    Read More