CRM M 29769 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Date of decision: 03.01.2011 1. CRM M 29769 of 2010 Bajrang ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent(s) 2. CRM M 34837 of 2010 Ranbir ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr.J P Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM M 29769 of 2010) Mr. KDS Hooda, Advocate for Mr. S S Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM M 34837 of 2010) Mr. Sidrath Sarup, DAG, Haryana for the respondent - State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of both the aforesaid petitions as the same have been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 292 dated CRM M 29769 of 2010 2 19.11.2009 under Section 363, 366-A, 376 (2) (g), 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, registered at P S Julana, District Jind. For facility of reference, the facts are being taken from CRM M 29769 of 2010. It is contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been implicated falsely. It is further stated that no rape was committed on the prosecutrix and the present case was only for extracting money. It is further stated that Seema, prosecutrix was examined in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jind on 24.05.2010 on oath, in which, she had not named Bajrang- petitioner and had given a different version from the FIR. It is further stated that the prosecutrix is more than 18 years. The medical report has falsified the story of the prosecutrix. Further, Bajrang-petitioner is working as Workshop attendant at ITI Kandla (Muzafarnagar) UP and is a regular employee of the institution and that he was not present at the time of the offence. Lastly, it was contended that Bajrang-petitioner has been enroped on the basis of a statement made by one Ranbir. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application of the petitioner. Heard. Heavy reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the statement of the prosecutrix made before the Sessions Judge, Jind on 24.05.2010. In fact, all that is evident from her statement is that the prosecutrix did not know the names of the four persons who committed rape on her, nor had she got recorded the names of these persons to the Police. Learned counsel for the State has placed on record the CRM M 29769 of 2010 3 statement of the prosecutrix recorded on 18.10.2010. From the said statement, it is evident that all the four accused persons were present in court on 18.10.2010 and she identified them. Relevant portion of her said statement reads as under:- “I identify those four persons present in the Court who had raped on me but I do not know the names of those four persons. Accused Ranbir present in the Court is not identified by me.” She further went on to state that :- “On 24.05.2010 my statement was also recorded in Sessions Court, Jind because some accused were not arrested by the police. Accused Ranbir did not commit rape upon me.” The allegations against Bajrang-petitioner (in CRM M 29769 of 2010) are serious. He is stated to be one of the four accused persons and is duly identified by the prosecutrix. As such, no ground to release Bajrang- petitioner on bail is made out at this stage. Accordingly, CRM M 29769 of 2010 is dismissed. However, qua Ranbir – petitioner (in CRM M 34837 of 2010), the prosecutrix has specifically stated that he has not committed rape on her. He was present in the Court and the prosecutrix did not identify him. As such, case of Ranbir-petitioner is altogether on different footings, therefore, he is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of trial Court. Copy of the order be placed on the connected file. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 03.01.2011 mohan