IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-8671 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: March 22, 2011 Amit Tiyagi …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) This is a petition under section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under sections 376,506,34 IPC and Section 3/33/89 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (offences under section 34 IPC and SC/ST Act added later on) vide FIR No.342 dated 24.12.2010 at police station Surajkund, District Faridabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is in custody since 22.2.2011 and trial of the case may take long time to conclude. Thus, petitioner may be extended the benefit of bail. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. FIR was registered on the statement of one Bharti who stated that she was 13 years old and working as a maid in the house of Tarun Rajpal for 2½ years. In the same Crl.Misc.No.M-8671 of 2011 - 2 - house Amit Tiyagi (petitioner herein) was employed as a driver. On 19.7.2010, Tarun Rajpal was admitted to hospital. His wife had also gone with him to look after. Their 8 years old son was the only one at home. At 12 O’ clock at night, petitioner knocked at the door. As the complainant opened door, he pounced on her and gagged her mouth. He tied her hands with a cloth (dupatta). Thereafter, he committed rape upon her. He also threatened that she should not disclose the incident to anybody. The age of the prosecutrix is stated to be 13 years at the time of alleged crime. Keeping in view seriousness of allegations, nature of crime and punishment it would entail in case of conviction, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. March 22, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE