IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-8979 of 2011 Date of Decision : 15.7.2011 Satnam Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. R.P. Kansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. US Dhaliwal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the complainant. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 17.8.2010 for the offences under Sections 363, 366A, 376, 342, 506 and 120-B IPC. The complainant Joga Singh has alleged that he has two daughters and a son. One of the daughters who is a victim in the present case was studying in 10+1 class. Her date of birth is 2.11.1993. On 9.8.2010 the daughter of the complainant who is the victim had gone to school. The complainant asked his brother Puran Singh to bring his daughters back from the school. The brother of the complainant when he went to bring the daughters of the complainant back from school, the whereabouts of one of CRM No. M-8979 of 2011 [2] the daughters who is the victim could not be known. They searched for her on 17.8.2010. Then it transpired that Ranjit Singh with the help of his sister Amrit Pal Kaur and his cousin brother Satnam Singh (petitioner) and brother-in-law of his sister namely Darshan Singh had enticed the daughter of the complainant to marry Ranjit Singh. The statement of the daughter of the complainant was recorded on 25.8.2010 by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. In the said statement, the daughter of the complainant, as regards the petitioner, stated that he allured her to solemnize her marriage with Ranjit Singh. Besides, the petitioner along with Darshan Singh had brought the daughter of the complainant to the Gurdwara on 19.8.2010 where her parents were present. This Court in terms of order dated 10.1.2011 (Annexure P2) granted bail to the petitioner in respect of the offences under Sections 363, 366-A and 120-B IPC. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the other offences for which the petitioner had been charged were not alleged in the FIR (Annexure P1) and therefore, were not mentioned in the earlier petition seeking bail. It may be noticed that the prosecution has cited 21 witnesses. The petitioner is in custody since 17.8.2010. The petitioner is alleged to have enticed the prosecutrix to marry Ranjit Singh. The role of the petitioner is to be established by the prosecution by leading evidence. Till date no witness has been examined. CRM No. M-8979 of 2011 [3] In the circumstances, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala shall be admitted to bail. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE July 15, 2011 amit