CRM-M-27949 of 2011(O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-27949 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:21.09.2011 Ravi . . .Petitioner Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This is a petition for bail pending trail in a case registered vide FIR No.190 dated 11.5.2010 under Sections 363, 366, 376(g), 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak. The FIR was registered on 11.5.2010 by father of the prosecutrix Jyoti in which he had alleged that he had a doubt that Deepak had enticed away his daughter with the help of his companions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a student of BA IInd year aged 21 years and is in custody since 23.5.2010. He further submits that Jyoti cannot be believed as in her statement dated 23.5.2010 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she did not name the present petitioner, however, the present petitioner has been firstly named in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. on 25.5.2010 and now while appearing as PW1 on 11.5.2011 she had again named the present petitioner as one of the rapist. In this case, the petitioner had earlier applied for bail vide CRM-M-6767 of 2011 which was dismissed on 31.3.2011 because at that stage the statement of prosecutrix was not recorded. CRM-M-27949 of 2011(O&M) - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition has been filed after the statement of prosecutrix is recorded and he has emphasized that the prosecutrix was having affair with co-accused/non-applicant Deepak with whom she has been roaming round at various places before she had recovered. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In this case, FIR was registered on 11.5.2010. At that time the father of the prosecutrix had raised a suspicion against Deepak and his companions that they had enticed away his daughter with bad intention. Prosecutrix was recovered on 23.5.2010 and her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she had only named Deepak, who had allegedly raped her but in her statement recorded on 25.5.2010 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated before the Magistrate that she has been raped by present petitioner as well. Petitioner has now entered into witness box as PW1 and has stated that “Accused Deepak took me to a room in an open field near the police post. Then, he called his friend Ravi, who is the accused and is present in Court, there and then both the accused raped me in that room.” Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner is an accused in a case of gang rape and has been instrumental in providing motor cycle etc. to the other co-accused Deepak, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 JUDGE Vivek