Cr.Misc. NO. M 33363 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr.Misc. NO. M 33363 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION 6.2.2009 Lal Singh and others ......PETITIONER VERSUS Smt. Dayawati and another ......RESPONDENTS PRESENT: Mr. DS Bali,Sr.Advocate with Mr.DV Gupta, Advocate Mr. AR Sidhu,Sr.Advocate with Mr. VD Goyal, Advocate Mr. SS Goripuria, DAG, Hry M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioners seek the concession of pre-arrest bail in a private complaint filed by respondent No.1 u/s 452/376/506/34 IPC. The petitioners have been summoned vide order dated 17.9.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.1 had earlier levelled similar allegations against the petitioners and the same were found to be false by police on investigation and a cancellation report has been submitted before the Illaqa Magistrate. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case on account of mother of respondent No.1 Imarti having a civil litigation regarding some land pending before the civil courts. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to Annexure P-2, an order passed in RSA No. 442 of 2007 (Lal Singh vs Imarti & others). Imarti happens to be the mother of complainant- Cr.Misc. NO. M 33363 of 2008 -2- respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has vehemently opposed the petition for pre-arrest bail contending that it is a case where the prosecutrix has been gang raped by the petitioners and the said fact is established by cogent medical evidence produced on the record. So far as the pendency of the civil litigation between the mother of the complainant and the petitioners is concerned, learned counsel for the complainant has urged that it is the sole basis of molestation of the complainant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the duel version having already cropped up regarding the allegations of complainant, the petitioners can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail, especially when there is civil dispute pending between the mother of the prosecutrix-complainant and the petitioners uptill High Court pertaining to some land. The police had earlier registered an FIR but subsequently submitted the cancellation report. In view of the totality of above circumstances, without expression of any opinion on merits of the case, petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners will put in appearance before the summoning court on or before February 21, 2009, the next date of hearing before the summoning Court and in case of their doing so, they will be released on bail to the satisfaction of said Court subject to the conditions that the petitioners will continue to appear before the trial Court and will not tamper with the evidence or hamper further proceedings before the summoning Court or before the trial Court. February 6 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE