In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-5010 of 2009 Date of decision: 25.5.2009 Rajinder @ Raju ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate, for the complainant. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed by Rajinder @ Raju under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 387 dated 18.11.2008, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code , registered at Police Station Rai (Sonepat.) The case of the complainant as per the FIR, as reproduced in para 1 of the petition, is as under:- “It is submitted that I Poonam wife of Rajinder, caste Jat, is resident of village Liwaspur. Few days ago, I was sleeping at my house. At about 3/ 4.00 AM in the morning, Rajinder @ Raju of village Chatia who is milk Criminal Misc. No.M-5010 of 2009 -2- vendor came to my house and he took my photographs when I was sleeping and he forcibly raped me and he told me that if she disclosed about it to anybody then he would kill her husband and her two minor children. Rajinder used to come to my house to take milk and he, under the threat of killing my children, raped me 2-3 times. My husband is an employee in the factory and he used to give night duly there. I due to fear, did not disclose this to anybody. Today at about 10.30 AM, he came to my house when I was sweeping and he caught me from back side and he tried to make some forcible attempts and I raised the voice and I spared myself from him and he fled away from my house. Action be taken against him.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. In fact, no occurrence as alleged had taken place. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that six witnesses have already been examined during trial. Statement of the prosecutrix has been concluded. Now, as per the list of witnesses, only seven witnesses remain to be examined. Keeping in view the seriousness of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, no ground for bail is made out. Prosecutrix has been examined before the trial Court. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to comment upon the statement Criminal Misc. No.M-5010 of 2009 -3- made by the prosecutrix during trial. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient to direct the trial Court to conclude the trial within four months from today. (SABINA) JUDGE May 25, 2009 anita