Crl. Misc. No. M-30485 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-30485 of 2011 Date of Decision : October 31, 2011 Kartik @ Chandan .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Vineet Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG, Haryana. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Accused Kartik @ Chandan (mentioned as Kartik @ Chand in the petition) has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 56 dated 24.08.2011, under Sections 372, 363, 373, 376-G, 342, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) and Sections 3 and 5 of the I. T. P. Act, registered at Police Station Sector 20, District Panchkula. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner, on the Crl. Misc. No. M-30485 of 2011 2 pretext of getting the prosecutrix admitted in Air Hostess Course in an Institute being run by petitioner's co-accused Varinder Khanna at Chandigarh, handed over the prosecutrix to co-accused Varinder Khanna and Rakesh etc. at Delhi. The prosecutrix was brought to Chandigarh and was gang-raped. Petitioner's co-accused Varinder Khanna is not running any Institute of Air Hostess Course. Petitioner's co-accused Varinder Khanna, during interrogation, made disclosure statement inter alia stating that he paid Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner for enticing the prosecutrix. Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no adverse or incriminating allegation against the petitioner in the FIR. It was also contended that mother of the prosecutrix has affirmed affidavit Annexure P-2 that the petitioner has not done anything wrong with them. It was also contended that petitioner's co-accused Varinder Khanna has not been identified by the prosecutrix in Test Identification Parade (TIP). Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Sukhwinder Singh, contended that Varinder Khanna has pressurized the complainant party and on account thereof, he was not identified in the TIP and for the same reason, affidavit Annexure P-2 has been affirmed. It was further contended that there is also another case against Varinder Khanna of similar nature at Delhi. It was also submitted that the petitioner has also since shifted his residence from the stated address and is not available in spite of raids. Crl. Misc. No. M-30485 of 2011 3 I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is the case of the prosecution since inception that it was the petitioner, who introduced the prosecutrix (a minor) to co-accused Varinder Khanna for admission in Air Hostess Course, although it has emerged that Varinder Khanna is not running any Institute of Air Hostess Course. Thus, it was the petitioner, who sent the prosecutrix with his co-accused resulting in the unfortunate occurrence. It has also come during investigation that the petitioner allegedly received Rs.30,000/- from co-accused Varinder Khanna for sending the prosecutrix with the co-accused. In view of the aforesaid, it is not a fit case in which the petitioner should be granted benefit of anticipatory bail. The chain of action was set in motion by the act of the petitioner. His role, whether bona fide or mala fide, has to be investigated. For the reasons aforesaid, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for granting the petitioner concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. October 31, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE