IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-23752 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 24.09.2009 Jagtar Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. The State of Punjab ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.A.K.Walaia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr.N.G.Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. The present petition is for grant of regular bail. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are allegations that the rape was committed by Harpreet Singh @ Happy and there is no allegation with regard to the petitioner having committed the said offence. He contends that the only allegation against the petitioner as per the FIR is that he accompanied the accused Harpreet Singh @ Happy and the prosecutrix-Amandeep Kaur from her house to the place(s) where the rape is alleged to have committed. He points out that there are various discrepancies in the prosecution story itself as has been given in the FIR but he would not rely upon it and rather refers to the medico legal report of the prosecutrix where it is mentioned that the rape was committed on 19.6.2009 at 11.00 A.M. by the prosecutrix to the doctor. He after referring to the report submits that no external injury marks were found on the body of the prosecutrix and, therefore, it cannot be said that the rape was committed upon her by force and she was not a consenting party. His further Crl.Misc.No.M-23752 of 2009 -2- submission is that as per the FIR, the alleged rape is stated to have taken place on the intervening night of 19-20.6.2009. He, on this basis, submits that the petitioner, as a matter of fact, had not accompanied the prosecutrix and the other co-accused and he has been roped in merely to give a semblance that the prosecutrix had not accompanied the accused Harpreet Singh @ Happy of her own free will. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-State and the complainant have submitted that there was no question of consent of the prosecutrix as she is only 13 and half years of age and the factum of rape having been committed by Harpreet Singh @ Happy is beyond doubt in the light of the medico legal report, reference whereof has been made by the counsel for the petitioner. It is further the submission that the prosecutrix was forced to accompany them and the petitioner was an active participant in the commission of the crime of kidnapping. On this basis, they pray that the petitioner be not enlarged on bail. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Discrepancies as have been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner do not rule out the possibility that the petitioner may not be involved in the offence. Further, the petitioner is in custody since 25.6.2009 and the trial is not likely to conclude soon. Keeping in view the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last three months, the present application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar. September 24, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE