IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-22046 of 2009 Date of decision : October 28, 2009 Rishi Pal ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. JS Dahiya, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Pardeep Virk, DAG Haryana L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Rishi Pal has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 360 dated 26.10.2008 under sections 120-B, 342, 376(2)(g) and 506 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Sonepat. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the prosecutrix aged about 16 years 3 months at the time of occurrence was called by Saroj to her house where petitioner and Kapoora were present. Saroj left her house and thereafter petitioner and Kapoora committed rape on the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are contradictions in the statement made by prosecutrix in the FIR and in her supplementary statement. However, the so called contradictions detailed in Criminal Misc. No. M-22046 of 2009 -2- paragraph no. 5 of the bail petition are no contradictions and are mere further clarificatory details. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that no external or internal injury was found on the prosecutrix. However, this circumstance does not help the petitioner at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the prosecutrix did not make any noise. However, it is mentioned in the FIR itself that she had made noise which attracted her uncle Raj Pal. It is a case of gang rape. No special ground for releasing the petitioner on bail is made out. Accordingly, the instant bail petition is dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 28, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'