Crl.M.No.M-15321 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-15321 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 24, 2010 Ibrahim .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.S.Sihota, Sr. Advocate with Mr.B.R.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.160, dated 28.4.2010, under Sections 294, 353, 354, 186 IPC, registered at Police Station Hathin, District Palwal. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. The present case has been registered against the petitioner on the statement of Sunita, MPHW(F) Mandkola, on 27.4.2010. According to her on 25.4.2010, she alongwith Munesh, AWW, Lathama, NGO and Raju, NGO had gone to village Mathepur to administer polio drops as a booth was set up for that purpose. The allegations against petitioner-accused are that when he reached there at about 9.00 a.m., he told them that they should go from house to house otherwise they should leave that place. Further allegations are that when the complainant and other officials told him that polio drops were to be administered at the booth only and lateron medicines will be administered by going house to house, the petitioner used filthy abuses to them and told them that they should sleep with him one by one, meaning thereby they should have sexual intercourse with him. When complainant and other officials told him that he should stop abusing them, Crl.M.No.M-15321 of 2010 (O&M) -2- the petitioner caught hold of the complainant with bad intention and had thrown away the vaccine carrier. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to the party faction and that he had also made a complaint to Civil Surgeon against the complainant on 28.4.2010. Allegations against petitioner-accused are serious in nature. He has outraged the modesty of a woman. The complaint dated 28.4.2010 to Civil Surgeon is only a counter-blast to the complaint already made by the complainant to the police. Hence, it is not such a case in which extra- ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner- accused. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Ibrahim for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 24.5.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge