IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 7921 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: 07.05.2010. Harbhajan Lal @Happy ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 182, dated 24.09.2007 under Sections 366/376/365/328/ 506/342/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the whole record carefully. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prosecutrix had gone with the petitioner with her free will and consent and that a petition for protection of life and liberty was also filed by the petitioner and the prosecutrix before this Court. It is further contended that there are material discrepancies in the version of occurrence as given by the CRM No.M-7921 of 2010 complainant to the SSP, Ludhiana in the complaint, Annexure P11 and the version given in the FIR, Annexure P6. It is further contended that in the complaint, Annexure P11, it was averred that the prosecutrix was returning to her house from the Gurudwara from village Bahadurke when the petitioner, his father and mother stopped the prosecutrix and she was made to smell something forcibly as a result of which she became unconscious. It is further contended that as per the FIR, it has been mentioned that on 04.09.2009 at about 9.00 PM one Sinder Kaur came to the house of the prosecutrix and she told her that Baba Ji i.e. her husband was out of station and she was alone in the Gurudwara and requested the prosecutrix to accompany her in the Gurudwara and that prosecutrix went with her to Gurudwara where Harbhajan Lal, Harbilas and Gurmeet Kaur were already present and they then and there intoxicated the prosecutrix. Hence, it is submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further contended that petitioner has been continuing in custody since 20.09.2009 and that trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future as even charge has not been framed against the petitioner so far. Bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the State, on instruction from HC. Amrik Singh, on the ground that prosecutix has not been examined so far. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of Harbhajan Lal is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana. 2 CRM No.M-7921 of 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 7, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3