IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-18479 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 9, 2010 Kirpal Singh .........................................................................Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .................................................. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. A.P.S.Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr.A.S.Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Mr.Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the complainant. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.73 dated 20.7.2009, under Sections 354,342,506/34 (Sections 376, 366, 363 added later on) of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Mulepur, District Fatehgarh Sahib and now summoned in complaint case bearing No. 50/24.8.2009 titled as Atinder Kaur vs. Kirpal Singh and others pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Fatehgarh Sahib under Sections 354,342, 363,376, 506 IPC (Annexure P5). Crl.Misc. No.18479 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, initially, the prosecutrix had not made any allegation against the petitioner qua rape but later on her supplementary statement was recorded after 11 days and the offence under Section 376 IPC was added. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecutrix was a major. The medical examination of the prosecutrix did not suggest that she had been subjected to rape. Learned State counsel, who is assisted by the counsel for the complainant, has submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were serious in nature. Petitioner has been summoned to face trial under Sections 376, 363, 354, 342 and 506 IPC. After investigation, the Investigating Agency had prepared the cancellation report. A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P2) reveals that there is no specific allegation to the fact that the prosecutrix had been subjected to rape. In the preliminary evidence, prosecutrix appeared in the witness box as CW1 and her grand father appeared in witness box as CW2. Mother of the prosecutrix appeared in the witness box as CW3. Dr. Usha Singh, appeared in the witness box as CW5. A perusal of the statement of CW5, Dr.Usha Singh, does not prima-facie lead to the inference that the prosecutrix had been subjected to rape. Learned counsel for the complainant has failed to show that the opinion of the medical Board had been produced before the Magistrate in the preliminary evidence. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this petition, it Crl.Misc. No.18479 of 2010 (O&M) -3- would be just and expedient to allow this petition. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib within a week from today and the petitioner be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the said Court. (Sabina) Judge July 09, 2010 arya