Criminal Misc.-M No. 29263 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 29263 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.11.2011 Kala Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. D. S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K. S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even as per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant was eight months' pregnant at the time when the complaint was made to the police, meaning thereby the rape must have been committed eight months prior thereto. It was not disclosed by her to any one during this period. She has destroyed the evidence to link the petitioner with the rape as foetus was aborted on 21.8.2011 without even intimating the police though the FIR was already registered on 9.8.2011. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in the enquiry by the police, it was found that the complainant was living with the petitioner, whereas other brother of the petitioner and the father were living in a separate house. After the FIR was got registered on 9.8.2011, the complainant was examined in Primary Health Centre at Moonak on 19.8.2011 and she was found to be pregnant. She did not inform the date on which she had gone to Kaithal, i.e., her parents' house Criminal Misc.-M No. 29263 of 2011 [2] and also the fact that she had got her check-up done at Kirti Hospital, Kaithal on 18.8.2011; the head of the child in womb was deformed and she was to get the foetus aborted. Even intimation about the abortion on 21.8.2011 was not given to the police. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the alleged occurrence took place about eight months prior to the registration of the FIR and the complainant got the foetus aborted without even intimating the police, though the FIR was already registered, leaving no scope for DNA test, in my opinion, the petitioner is not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. He is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 11.11.2011 at 10.00 AM for joining investigation. In case of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for further investigation. He shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 2.11.2011 mk