In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M 23956 of 2009 Decided on 28.8.2009. Nitin @ Sonu -- Petitioner vs. State of Haryana --Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.S.K.Yadav,Advocate, for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No.146 dated 04.7.2009 under Section 376, 120-B IPC, at Police Station, Kanina, District Mohindergarh, in which offences under Sections 363,366 IPC were also added later on. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the statement of Kavita in which she has stated that her father had performed two marriages. Her first Aunti (Mausi) had died from whom her father had one son, namely, Mukesh and two daughters, namely Babli and Manju. Both the daughters are married. Her brother Mukesh is also married having a son namely, Nitin (petitioner) and daughter Pooja. It is further alleged that they are three sisters having been born from the wedlock of her father and her mother Kamla. Step brother Mukesh and his wife had been harassing her father and mother and has got transferred land in his CRM-M 23956 of 2009 -2- name from her father. Her father, mother and two younger sisters are living at his Mama's house at village Bakhrana (Rajasthan),whereas she stayed at the house of his bhabhi Sunita at Kalwari. On 10.6.2009, at about 11.00 a.m., when she was alone at her house, her nephew Nitin (petitioner) came there and forcibly committed rape upon her two-three times after tearing her salwar and shirt. Thereafter, she was sent to her uncle's house. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail which was dismissed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Narnaul, on 21.7.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on account of land dispute. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. There is a specific allegation levelled by the complainant against the petitioner that he had committed rape upon her. Therefore, I do not find it to be fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the bail petition is hereby dismissed. August 28,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge