Crl. Misc. No. M-20236 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-20236 of 2009 Date of Decision : September 09, 2009 Anil Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. G. S. Toor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Anil Kumar has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 189 dated 02.08.2008, under Sections 363, 366, 366-A, 376, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station City Barnala, District Sangrur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, prosecutrix was kidnapped by the petitioner along with other co-accused on 24.07.2008. Date of birth of the prosecutrix is 10.12.1992. She was under 16 years of age at that time. She was recovered on 04.08.2008 from the custody of the Crl. Misc. No. M-20236 of 2009 2 petitioner. The prosecutrix has made statement during investigation that she had been kidnapped by the petitioner and others and that she was raped by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecutrix made statement on 02.08.2008 before the Magistrate that her age was 23 years and that her father and uncle wanted to marry her against her wishes with some older man. However, the said statement does not help the petitioner because presently, the School Certificate reveals that date of birth of the prosecutrix is 10.12.1992. There is no material on record to the contrary to depict that the prosecutrix was aged above 16 years at the relevant time. Consequently, the plea of consent also does not help the petitioner, when the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that Shinder Kaur – the alleged facilitator has been found to be innocent and two other co-accused Sunil Kumar and Sadama have been granted bail. However, the petitioner cannot claim parity with them because the allegation of rape is against the petitioner only. Keeping in view the aforesaid, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits, the petitioner, in my opinion, does not deserve the concession of bail. Dismissed. September 09, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE