Criminal Misc.-M No. 14910 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 14910 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 04.10.2011 Sachin ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Chahal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. …. RAJESH BINDAL, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecutrix in the present case was 27 years of age at the time of incident. She had voluntarily accompanied the petitioner. Both of them had gone to Gurgaon in a vehicle hired by the petitioner, where they stayed as married couple for five days. They were apprehended by the police when they were coming back. It is even so stated by the prosecutrix in the FIR that they were caught by the police when she was coming back along with the petitioner for going to her parental home. The petitioner is in custody since January 01, 2011. In fact, the prosecutix in the present case was a consenting party. The allegations that she was administered tranquilizer are totally wrong. Pre-arrest bail application of Sumit was allowed by this Court, whose vehicle was hired by the petitioner along with the prosecutrix for going to Gurgaon. His statement was that both of them projected themselves to be married couple. He further referred to the statement of Sudarshan son of Som Dutt recorded by the police in whose house the Criminal Misc.-M No. 14910 of 2011 2 petitioner had stayed with the prosecutrix for five days. There were other tenants also living in that house. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the prosecutrix got her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate and narrated the same version as in the FIR that she was kidnapped and raped against her wishes. The petitioner does not deserve concession of bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made above, especially that the prosecutrix was admittedly 27 years of age when the alleged incident took place, she stayed with the petitioner for five days, in my opinion, the petitioner deserves concession of bail, pending trial. He is directed to be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Narnaul. The petition stands disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 04.10.2011 sharmila