Crl. Misc. No.M-26433 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-26433 of 2011 Date of Decision: 16.09.2011 Satish ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl. AG, Haryana. Mr. Sushma Singh, Advocate, for the complainant. M.M.S. BEDI, J. The petitioner seeks concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Sonia alleging that she had been raped by Anil, Narinder and petitoner on 16.06.2011. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on complaint filed by Sonia to SHO Police Station, Panipat in writing on 17.06.2011 wherein she had levelled allegations against two boys only i.e. Anil and Narinder. Counsel submits that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the said information but the petitioner has been involved in the case on account of the fact that there is a dispute regarding demarcation of land between the father of the prosecutrix and the father of the petitioner. It is claimed that on 15.06.2011 demarcation of a disputed property in village Crl. Misc. No.M-26433 of 2011 -2- had been conducted and feeling aggrieved by the said demarcation, the prosecutrix has involved the petitioner in the case of rape. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. The story of the prosecution for false implication on the basis of alleged first information (Annexure P-3) cannot be believed at this stage. In view of the fact that the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which the petitioner has been specifically named to have committed the offence of rape. It is premature to form an opinion that on account of land dispute the father of the prosecutrix has persuaded his daughter to level allegations of rape against the petitioner in order to settle civil dispute. The arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner may constitute good ground to seek concession of regular bail after the completion of the investigation. No extraordinary exceptional circumstances exists at this stage to grant the concession of pre arrest bail. Dismissed. (M.M.S. BEDI) 16.09.2011 JUDGE manju