IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 34155 of 2010 Date of decision: 1.8.2011 Jai Parkash petitioner vs State of Punjab respondent Present:- Ms. Riffi Birla, Advocate. Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Addl.A.G.Pb M.M.S.BEDI, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is a case of consent as the prosecutrix had voluntarily indulged in the sexual intercourse with the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the statement of the prosecutrix , which prima facie indicates that the prosecutrix had gone to the house of Jai Parkash as he had called her to the house on the pretext that Rampal, with whom she wanted to marry, was available in his house. It will be pre-mature to express any opinion at this stage whether such an act could be said to be a voluntary act of indulging in sexual intercourse or an act for which she was fraudulently persuaded to submit to the wishes of the petitioner. No ground for bail is made out. Dismissed. August 1 , 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE