Cr.Misc. NO. M 2320 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr.Misc. NO. M 2320 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION :30.1.2009 Punjab Singh ......PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab. ......RESPONDENTS PRESENT: Mr. HS Batth, Advocate Ms.Rajni Gupta, DAG, Pb M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered on the statement of Gurvinder Kaur made by her to the police on 4.1.2009 to the effect that about two years prior to the reporting of the matter she had gone to the shop of the petitioner, who is running a medical clinic in front of the shop of the complainant. He had given her an injection. She became unconscious and the petitioner had committed rape upon her. He continued to commit sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marrying her. She subsequently became pregnant and abortion was also done. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that the complainant is bent upon to blackmail him. In March 2008 the complainant had filed an application before the Women Cell, Tarn Taran levelling the same allegations but she compromised the matter. She had also made a statement before the DSP, Cr.Misc. NO. M 2320 of 2009 2 Tarn Taran to the affect that the matter has been compromised. Without disclosing the factum of the matter having earlier been compromised, she has got the FIR registered. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the facts and circumstances of the present case. There are clear allegations by the prosecutrix against the petitioner of having committed sexual intercourse with her first by making her unconscious and subsequently on the pretext of marrying her by making a false promise. The consent seems to have been obtained in a fraudulent manner. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was compromised is concerned, the offence alleged against the petitioner is not compoundable and it is apparent on the face of it that the liberty granted to the petitioner is being used to tamper with the evidence and to pressurize the complainant to compromise the matter. Even if it is presumed that the matter has been compromised, the said compromise could be on the terms that the complainant had agreed not to pursue the matter against the petitioner but if seen legally ,the allegations prima facie constitute offence u/s 376 IPC. No ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Dismissed. Nothing mentioned in the order will prejudice the right of the petitioner on merits. All the observations are meant for adjudication of the pre-arrest bail petition. January 30 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE