CRM-M-36545-2010 [ 1 ] :::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36545-2010 Date of decision:17.08.2011. Sukhdev Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for regular bail in a pending trial case registered vide FIR No.101 dated 17.08.2010, under Sections 376, 342 and 292 of the IPC and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information & Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station Banur, District Patiala. The allegations are that the petitioner had raped sister of the complainant, namely, Usha Devi and prepared a compact disk (C.D.). He also took the complainant into confidence and gave her some sedative and threatened her that he would marry her sister only if she allows him to have sex with her and prepare same kind of movie. It is also alleged that he had asked that he would not show the movie to anybody else and delete it. Thereafter, he raped the complainant and prepared the movie. However, the complainant came to know that the obscene film prepared by the petitioner is being sold in the market and is available on the computer of Pardeep Kumar, Gurpreet Singh and Sukhwinder Singh. CRM-M-36545-2010 [ 2 ] :::::::: Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the story is totally false because if Usha Devi, sister of the complainant, was raped by the petitioner, then why she did not register a case against him. He further submitted that Gurpreet Singh and Pardeep Kumar, co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted concession of bail by the learned Court below but his bail has been declined. On the contrary, learned State Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has committed a serious and heinous crime by not only raping the complainant but also by preparing her obscene film which has been sold by him in the market. It is further argued that the case of the other co-accused cannot be equated with the petitioner because they neither raped the complainant nor prepared the C.D. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. August 17, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE