IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 3250 of 2009 Date of decision: February 26, 2009 Gurpreet Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab. **** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 307, 377, 511 and 506 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) registered at Police Station Kalanaur, Distt. Gurdaspur. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Kulwant Singh who has since been examined as PW2. In the FIR, it has been stated by Kulwant Singh (PW-2) complainant that on 26.3.2008 his grandson aged five years went outside to play and did not return home for 2/3 hours. The complainant and his wife Surinder Kaur went in his search. When they reached near the land of Didar Singh, they heard noise from the ‘dhab’. It was about 4.00 p.m. they saw that their grandson was undressed and there was a rope tied around his neck and the petitioner was holding the rope and was attempting to sodomize the grandson of the complainant. Dr. Lakhwinder Singh, Medical Officer, CHC, Kalanaur has been examined as PW1 and he has deposed that a reddish to brownish abrasion measuring 6 x 1 cm on the anterior aspect of neck about 3.5 cm above the suprasternal notch and Crl. Misc. No. M- 3250 of 2009 [2] about 4 cm on chin was noticed. Kulwant Singh (PW2) who is the complainant did not support the prosecution case and he was declared hostile and cross-examined. However, Surinder Kaur (PW3) wife of Kulwant Singh has deposed that she and her husband Kulwant Singh (PW-2) had seen the accused naked and so was their grandson. Besides, the accused (petitioner) had tied a string around the neck of the grandson of the complainant. The petitioner intended to sodomize the grandson of the complainant who was lying on the ground. On seeing the complainant and his wife Surinder Kaur, the petitioner fled away from the scene. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no injury on the rear side of the neck of the victim. Besides, Kulwant Singh (PW-2) has not supported the prosecution version. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that 4 PWs have been examined and the case is listed for recording the statement of other PWs on 4.3.2009. It is submitted that 12 PWs have been cited and 4 have been examined and some may even be given up. It may be noticed that there are allegations of attempt to sodomize a minor child aged five and a half years. One of the prosecution witnesses namely Surinder Kaur (PW3) is the wife of the complainant (PW-2). The versions of Dr. Lakhwinder Singh (PW1) and that of complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-2) and his wife Surinder Kaur (PW-3) shall however be considered and gone into by the trial Court after evidence has been led by the parties. The effect of there being no injury on the rear side of the neck would also more appropriately be considered by the trial Court. Keeping in view the nature of allegations and also the stage of the case at which it is at present, no ground for grant of concession of bail to the petitioner is made out. Crl. Misc. No. M- 3250 of 2009 [3] Consequently, Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall consider the facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of evidence and material independently as adduced before it. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE February 26, 2009 amit