Crl. Misc. No.M-24260 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-24260 of 2010 Date of decision: 30.09.2010 Narender alias Sunny .. Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana .. Respondent Present:- Mr.Neeraj Bhutani, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Pawan Singh, AA.G., Haryana. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner-Narender alias Sunny seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 29.06.2010 for the offences under Sections 376 (g) and 120-B IPC; besides, Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, District Rohtak. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of complainant-prosecutrix. It is alleged that she is a married woman. About 1½ years earlier her husband had left her and she came to Banaras from her in-laws family. About one month back one person namely Pappu, resident of Chunar, allured her by saying that he would get her married in Delhi and she along with him came to Nazafgarh, Delhi. He, however, left her at Nazafgarh in the company of Sunny (petitioner) and his wife Pushpa. Ten days earlier to the registration of FIR, Sheela alias Sunita wife of Dalbir, resident of Rohtak purchased the complainant for Rs.40,000/- from Sunny (petitioner) and his wife and brought her to Sector- Crl. Misc. No.M-24260 of 2010 ::2:: 3, Rohtak. The Mobile Number of Sunny (petitiioner) is 09718137783 and Mobile Number of Sheela alias Sunita is 9996405285. Sheela alias Sunita kept her (complainant) at her residence for 3-4 days. After that daily one or two persons committed wrongful act with her without her consent. For the last 2-3 days earlier to the registration of FIR, Sheela alias Sunita after taking Rs.3,000/- sent her (complainant) with three persons. The name of one of the persons was Monu. In the night, all the three persons after bringing her to a house under construction, committed rape on her without her consent. She raised a noise and many persons gathered there. Thereafter, all the three persons who committed rape with her fled away in their car. It is stated that she can identify them if they were brought before her. Sunny and his wife Pushpa in connivance with each other had sold her for Rs.40,000/- to Sheela alias Sunita, who forced her to indulge in prostitution. It is requested that legal action be taken against them. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Sheela alias Sunita has been granted the concession of bail vide order dated 28.07.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that till date the correct address of the petitioner has not been ascertained and the petitioner does not reside at the address as is given in the head-note of the petition. This has been verified from the locality at which the address of the petitioner is given. Besides, his wife Pushap has been absconding and has not been traced till date. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. The petitioner is stated to have sold the complainant to Sheela alias Sunita for Rs.40,000/-. Besides, the apprehension of the prosecution is that the complete particulars and address of the petitioner are not available and he Crl. Misc. No.M-24260 of 2010 ::3:: is likely to abscond. His wife (Pushpa) is also absconding. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Identity Card (Annexure P-1) issued by Election Commission of India. The address mentioned in the said Identity Card (Annexure P-1) is the same as given in the memo of parties of the present petition. In this regard, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the Police had specifically gone to the said address and found that the petitioner does not reside there. Therefore, at this stage, no ground for bail is made out. However, in case, the petitioner is able to give his complete particulars and whereabouts, where he would be available in the event of his release on bail, he would be at liberty to file a fresh petition stating his complete particulars and address. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition stands dismissed at this stage. (S.S. SARON) September 30, 2010 JUDGE sukhpreet