Criminal Misc.-M No. 22474 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 22474 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.10.2011 Jai Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Jasmer Rozera, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G. S. Chahal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of bail to the petitioner pending trial in FIR No. 32 dated 17.1.2011, registered under Sections 363, 366, 120-B and 376 IPC, Police Station, Sadar Panipat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecutrix, who was admittedly more than 16 years of age on the date of alleged incident, was having affairs with the petitioner. She had run away at her own sweet will, as both were to solemnise marriage. She stayed with the petitioner for 15 days. They travelled to different places through public transport and no objection was raised by her. When they came back, the petitioner was arrested and under pressure, the prosecutrix got her statement recorded implicating the petitioner. There are letters written by the prosecutrix to the petitioner, which are on record. No mark of injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix when she was medically examined. Only eight prosecution witnesses out of total 15 have been examined and the trial is going to take time. Criminal Misc.-M No. 22474 of 2011 [2] On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in the statement of the prosecutrix got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that the petitioner had committed rape with her without her consent and she was threatened by her Chachi to go with the petitioner, for which she was paid ` 9,500/- by the petitioner. Considering the seriousness of offence, the petitioner does not deserve concession of bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the age of the prosecutrix and the fact that she remained with the petitioner for 15 days and visited different places while moving in public transport, 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, Panipat. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 31.10.2011 mk