Criminal Misc.No. M-8526 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No. M-8526 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision:22-3-2010 Raju Chauhan alias Raj Kumar ......... Petitioner Vs The State of Haryana .........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri Satbir Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been filed by Raju Chauhan alias Raj Kumar under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his regular bail in case F.I.R. No. 291 dated 6.5.2009 under Section 376/506 IPC Police Station City, Sirsa. This case was registered against the accused on the basis of the letter dated 15.4.2009 from NGO Child Line Prayas, Delhi addressed to Superintendent of Police, Sirsa regarding rape committed with one Diksha whereupon Kamlesh Rani Incharge Women Cell, Sirsa alongwith other police officials reached Delhi. Diksha was produced before the Police party. She made statement to the effect that on the day of Holi in the year 2009, she was sleeping in his house alongwith his mother Neelam. In the night, Raju Chauhan under the influence of liquor came to their house and raped her. When she raised alarm, he threatened her with dire consequences. On the next day, she went to Delhi and narrated the incident to her uncle Munish Kumar and aunt Anita. They reported the matter to Child Line Prayas Delhi. Thereafter, she was got medico legally examined. Statement Criminal Misc.No. M-8526 of 2010(O&M) 2 of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no injury has been found on any part of the body of the prosecutrix. If she had been forcibly raped there would have been some marks of scratches on parts of her body. There is a delay of 2 months in lodging the F.I.R. The challan has already been presented in the court and the charge has been framed against the accused. In these premises, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. I have well considered these submissions. As per allegations in the F.I.R. the prosecutrix was 12 years of age. For a little while, if it is assumed that she was as consenting party, she being 12 years of age her consent was immaterial. As regards delay in lodging the F.I.R. the same has to be looked into by the learned trial Court. If the petitioner is admitted to bail he may flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution evidence. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, no case is made out for grant of bail. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE March 22, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No