IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-32471 of 2008 Date of decision : 03.03.2009 Narender ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent. BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG Haryana. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that prosecutrix is a married lady and the FIR has been lodged on her complaint. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 23.7.2008, but the trial has not made much headway. Counsel further submits that FIR was lodged after delay of 6 days which makes prosecution story doubtful. According to the counsel, petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail pending trial. Counsel for the State has, however, vehemently opposed the bail application. He has referred to the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 8.07.2008 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani. According to the counsel, the said statement Annexure P-6/T to the petition, clearly indicts the petitioner. Counsel for the State also submits that one prosecution witness has already been examined and prosecutrix has been summoned for the next date of hearing i.e. 27.03.2009. He has made this statement on instructions from ASI Ajit Singh, who is present in Court. Counsel further submits that in case petitioner is enlarged Crl. Misc No. M-32471 of 2008 -2- on bail at this stage when prosecutrix is still to be examined, he is likely to tamper with the evidence. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that as prosecutrix has already given statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani clearly stating therein that the petitioner had raped her, there is no ground to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. It is evident that prosecutrix is yet to step in the witness box and depose before the trial court. Under these circumstances, the allegations being of abduction, rape and apart from other offences, the possibility that the petitioner will influence the witnesses if enlarged on bail cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, present petition for grant of bail deserves to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed. 03.03.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE