IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-19428 of 2009 Date of decision : September 02, 2009 Joginder Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. A.P.Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab with Mr. RS Rangi, Advocate, for the complainant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Joginder Singh has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 73 dated 1.10.2008 under sections 363, 366-A, 376, 506 read with section 34 IPC, Police Station Bariwala, District Mukatsar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the prosecutrix was sleeping in her court-yard along with some family members. At about 11.00 AM, petitioner's co-accused Gurlal Singh armed with Kapa and another co-accused Sukhmeet Singh went there and threatened her and took her away. Outside the court-yard, the petitioner was also present. All the three accused took the prosecutrix forcibly on motorcycle to a field. The accused had two motorcycles. All the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix turn by turn. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per birth Criminal Misc. No. M-19428 of 2009 -2- entry, Annexure P/1, the prosecutrix was aged over 17 years. However, learned State counsel contended that as per school certificate, date of birth of prosecutrix is 18.11.1993 and she was less than 15 years at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the prosecutrix was having love affairs with Sukhmeet Singh who was beaten by family members of the prosecutrix and FIR was lodged for the same and the instant FIR is the counter blast and the petitioner has been implicated being friend of Sukhmeet Singh. Learned State counsel, however, contended that before Sessions Court, a plea was taken that the prosecutrix was having love affairs with petitioner Joginder Singh and had allegedly written love letters to him. Be that as it may, even if the prosecutrix was having love affairs with Sukhmeet Singh, the prosecutrix would not have consented to sexual intercourse with the petitioner. Even otherwise in view of section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, statement of the prosecutrix that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse against her wishes, has prima facie to be accepted. It is a case of gang rape. Bail petition of co-accused Gurlal Singh has already been dismissed. Petitioner is not on a better footing. There is no special reason for admitting the petitioner to bail in a case of gang rape. In view of the aforesaid but without commenting anything on the merits, the instant bail petition is dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 02, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'