Criminal Misc.-M No. 23213 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 23213 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.10.2011 Kuldeep Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. A. S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K. S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of bail pending trial to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 20.2.2011. The FIR was registered more than 10 days thereafter, i.e., 2.3.2011. The time of occurrence is 11.00 AM. The prosecutrix had specifically named one Yadwinder Singh @ Binder Singh as the accused, who had entered her house and committed rape with her by making her consume some intoxicant tablets under threat. Yadwinder Singh was arrested. In his disclosure statement, he stated that in fact the petitioner had committed rape. Thereafter, the prosecutrix got her supplementary statement recorded on 22.4.2011 stating that she had wrongly named Yadwinder Singh and in fact, the petitioner had committed rape with her. The submission is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, firstly there was delay in lodging of the FIR and secondly the occurrence being during day time, the prosecutrix in her very first version, which was got recorded 10 days after the occurrence, had specifically Criminal Misc.-M No. 23213 of 2011 [2] named Yadwinder Singh. The petitioner, who is in custody since 29.4.2011, deserves concession of bail pending trial. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner, being accused of the heinous crime and the prosecutrix having named the petitioner during the course of enquiry, which was being conducted on a complaint filed by the mother of the prosecutrix, does not deserve concession of bail pending trial. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is a delay of 10 days in lodging of the FIR; the time of alleged occurrence was 11.00 AM; the prosecutrix had specifically named one Yadwinder Singh as the accused; the name of the petitioner cropped up only in the confessional statement of Yadwinder Singh recorded when he was in custody and in the supplementary statement of the prosecutrix recorded on 22.4.2011, where she changed her stand, 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, Mansa. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 20.10.2011 mk