In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M 23870 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on Oct 15,2009. Dharamveer -- Petitioner vs. State of Haryana --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Vikram Singh,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Amit Khatkar,AAG,Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: CRM 43279 of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. CRM-M 23870 of 2009 The petitioner has applied for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short, 'Cr.P.C.') in case FIR No 179 dated 25.4.2009 registered under Sections 366, 376-G, 506 IPC, at Police Station, Kunjpura, District Karnal. The allegations contained in the FIR are that 22.4.2009, Sunita the prosecutrix alongwith her minor son ,namely, Sachin aged about 4-½ years, was going to village Modipur, to meet her maternal uncle Jai son of Veer Bhan. When they reached near village Modipur, the petitioner came on a motor cycle and asked her to sit on it and forcibly took her to Kurukshetra Railway Station where they reached at 8.p.m. She was CRM-M23870 of 2009 -2- confined in a room and raped by the petitioner alongwith his three friends. She was confined in that room up to 24.4.2009. In the morning of 24.4.2009, she was taken to village Kunjpura by the petitioner whereas other persons stayed back at Kurukshetra. The petitioner threatened the complainant that if she opens her mouth, then she will suffer dire consequences. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is 20 years of age,whereas the complainant is 37 years old women having four children. It is alleged that on 24.4.2009, a case under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. was registered in which the statement of the complainant was recorded ,wherein she did not allege anything about rape whereas on 25.4.2009, the present case has been registered. It is also alleged that the petitioner is in custody since 30.4.2009. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has argued that the petitioner had earlier filed bail application before the Court below, which has been dismissed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge,( FTC) Karnal, vide his order dated 12.8.2009. It is further submitted by the learned State Counsel that the complainant did not disclose commission of rape on 24.4.2009 because she was under threat by the petitioner, however, the complaint has been lodged by the victim on 25.4.2009. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to their rival contentions. Since the offence is under Section 376 (G) of IPC, in which allegation of the complainant is that she has been raped by the petitioner as CRM-M23870 of 2009 -3- well as his other friends after abducting her forcibly and confining her in a room, therefore, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of regular bail and the same is hereby dismissed. Oct 15,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge