CRM-M-26825 of 2011 CRM-M-29753 of 2011 :::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRM-M-26825 of 2011 Date of Decision:20.10.2011 Simran alias Seeta …Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh …Respondent (2) CRM-M-29753 of 2011 Date of Decision:20.10.2011 Kali Devi and another …Petitioners Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Vikram K. Chaudhri, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Ashima Mor, Advocate, for UT Chandigarh. Mr. Heman Aggarwal, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two bail applications bearing CRM-M-26825-2011 titled as `Simran alias Seeta Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh’ [for short “first petition”] and CRM-M-29753-2011 titled as `Kali Devi and another Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh’ [for short “second petition”] in which the petitioners have prayed for grant of regular bail in a pending trial case registered vide FIR No.157 dated 28.05.2011 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC at Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh. The FIR is registered at the instance of Shankar who has alleged that his minor girl has been enticed away by one Gopal. He also made a sweeping statement that the entire family of Gopal is involved in the said occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the girl has already been recovered and is lodged in Nari Niketan and the petitioner in the first petition is a married woman and residing separately, whereas the petitioners in the second petition were residing in the house where Gopal 1 CRM-M-26825 of 2011 CRM-M-29753 of 2011 :::::::: was residing with them. It is also stated that after allegedly enticing away the minor daughter of the complainant, Gopal fled away from Chandigarh and stayed somewhere in Himachal Pradesh for over 4 months along with the girl and when she was recovered, she made a statement before the Magistrate that she does not want to go with her parents, rather she wanted to live with Gopal. He further submits that there is no direct allegation against the petitioners of connivance with Gopal in enticing away the girl nor there could be any allegation which constitutes the offence of rape against them. Gopal is admittedly in jail and the petitioners are also in custody since 22.07.2011, but the challan has already been presented. In reply, learned State Counsel submits that after the girl had eloped with Gopal, she remained with him for 4 months and has been recovered from his custody and not from the custody of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued vehemently to oppose the bail applications on the ground that one of the family member of the petitioners, namely, Hema has moved an application in order to meet the prosecutrix and if the petitioners are also released on bail, then they would also pressurise her to resile. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no question of exercising any influence upon the prosecutrix because she has already opened her mind by stating before the Magistrate that she does not want to live with her parents and wants to live with Gopal. He further submits that the petitioners are neither the previous convicts nor any other case is pending against them. After hearing learned counsel for the parties but without making any observations on merits of the case, both the petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) OCTOBER 20, 2011 JUDGE vinod* 2