IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 13123 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 4, 2011. Harvinder Singh ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.Gill, D.A.G., Punjab. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.44 dated 06.04.2010, under Sections 354/342 IPC and subsequently added offences under Sections 376/420/511 IPC and charge framed under Sections 342/354/376/511 IPC registered at Police Station Ladhowal, District Ludhiana. This is second application for regular bail filed on behalf of petitioner-accused. His earlier bail application was dismissed on merit vide order dated 13.07.2010. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. CRM No.M-13123 of 2011 The brief allegations against the petitioner – accused are that prosecutrix who is a minor girl aged about 14-1/2 years had gone to the clinic of petitioner for getting medicine as she was running temperature. Further allegations are that petitioner inserted thermometer in her mouth and while she was to leave the room, in which she was being checked up by the petitioner-accused, the same was bolted from inside by the petitioner. When she tried to open the same, he pushed her on the bench where patients are examined and molested her and attempted to commit rape upon her. Further allegations are that she was stripped of her clothes by the petitioner. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been continuing in custody since 07.04.2010 and even prosecutrix has not been examined so far. It is further contended that it is not a case of attempt to rape and that rather offence under Section 354 IPC only is made out. He has also contended that though petitioner has been charged under Sections 342/354/376 IPC read with Section 511 IPC and however, he has filed revision petition before this Court challenging the order framing charge against him. Bail application of the petitioner has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that prime facie offence under Section 376 IPC read with Section 511 IPC is made out and charge has already been framed for the said offences and that even prosecutrix has not been examined so far. He has further contended that no father would involve his minor daughter falsely in such type of case. He has also contended that he is likely to pressurise the prosecution witnesses including the prosecutrix if released on bail. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I am of the view that it is not such a case in 2 CRM No.M-13123 of 2011 which concession of bail should be granted to the accused at this stage. There is no merit in the instant application for bail filed by Harvinder Singh and the same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) July 4, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3