CRM-M- 21025 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh. CRM-M- 21025 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on July 20,2011 Baldev Singh --Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.D.K.Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) CRM-37812 of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. CRM-M-21025 of 2011 This is a petition for pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,'Cr.P.C.') in a case registered vide FIR No.32 dated 11.2.2010, under Sections 376/506/34 of the IPC at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana in which the petitioner has been summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,'Cr.P.C.') to face trial and has been issued non bailable warrants. The petitioner had applied for pre-arrest bail before the Court below which has been dismissed on 15.6.2011. Crux of the FIR is that the complainant was raped by the four accused, namely, Sulakhan Singh,Surjit Singh, Manga and Baldev Singh (the petitioner). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner CRM-M- 21025 of 2011 (O&M) 2 was not challaned by the police and was kept in column No.2 as he was absolved by the D.S.P (D) Ludhiana (Rural) in his enquiry report dated 16.6.2010, observing that though the petitioner was present at the time of occurrence but he was attending a birth day party as per Video CD of the function. He has also observed that the place of occurrence was 400/500 Sq. yards away from the place of occurrence where the birth day party was going on. Learned counsel further submits that the Court below while summoning the petitioner has not read the entire statement and the prosecutrix has not challenged the medical report. He has relied upon two decision of this Court in the cases of Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007 (4) AICLR 419 and Harinder Singh Sharma @ Balli Vs. State of Punjab 2009 (5) R.C.R.(Criminal) 736. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. No doubt, the petitioner was not sent up for trial as he was kept in column No.2 of the challan but in the statement of the prosecutrix, she had categorically named the petitioner as one of the persons involved in the gang rape. The prosecution then filed an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C which has been allowed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 10.5.2011 and the petitioner has been summoned through non bailable warrants to appear before the Court below. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, in the case of Tarsem Singh (Supra), it has been observed therein that the said petitioner was found innocent during investigation who otherwise was attributed a stick blow. In those circumstances, it was held that his custody was not required for the CRM-M- 21025 of 2011 (O&M) 3 purpose of investigation. In the case of Harinder Singh Sharma @ Balli (Supra), the petitioner was summoned to stand trial as an additional accused. It was observed that no incriminating material was found against him and the purpose of summoning was to procure his presence. The facts of aforesaid two cases are altogether different from the facts of the case in hand in which the offence is very serious as the petitioner is involved in a gang rape. The prosecutrix has stated that she was attending a birth day party from where she was picked up by all the four accused, then she was taken to the motor of Sulakhan Singh where they raped her one by one. In these circumstances, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence this petition is hereby dismissed. July 20,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge