Crl. Misc. No. M-33908 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-33908 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: January 14, 2010 Ajit .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 121 dated 05.06.2009 under Sections 363/366/376/216/120-B IPC, P.S. Julana, District Jind. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that it is a clear case of consent. No particulars of rape viz. the date, time or even place of the incident has been given out by the prosecutrix. As per the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. given by the prosecutrix aged more than 17 years, she had been living with Manish for one and a half months at Panipat. Manish is one of the co-accused of the petitioner. The police arrested both Manish and the prosecutrix from Panipat. In subsequent part of the statement, it has been stated that Manish did bad act with her two three Crl. Misc. No. M-33908 of 2009 2 times, others two namely Sonu and Ajit, the petitioner, and two more whose names are not known also raped her. On a query of the Court, learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from ASI Ram Avtar, admits that there was no injury on the person of the prosecutrix. So far as contents of statement are concerned, they are also admitted. I find that it is the admitted position that the prosecutrix had been living of her own will with Manish for one and a half months at Panipat and was arrested alongwith Manish. Allegation against the petitioner is vague. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that investigation has been concluded and conclusion of trial is likely to take time, the petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of Trial Court. 14.01.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE