IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-11544 of 2010 Date of Decision: May 10, 2010 Hasna .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.113 dated 4.6.2008 under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(g), 343, 506 IPC read with Section 3 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered with Police Station, Ferozepur Jhirka, District Mewat. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been in custody Crl. Misc. No. M-11544 of 2010 [2] since 16.8.2008. De novo trial is required in view of the fact that some additional accused have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further states that it is a case of consent. The prosecutrix had an affair with the petitioner. The prosecutrix was recovered while she was in the company of the petitioner. The prosecutrix was housed in Nari Niketan and was brought before the Magistrate thrice to enable her to give statement. The prosecutrix however did not give statement till 13.6.2008. Learned counsel contends that circumstances clearly make it evident that it is under coercion or influence that the prosecutrix gave statement so as to implicate the petitioner, however, at a belated stage. Learned counsel for the respondent- State, on instructions from Raj Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector, admits the factum of date of arrest and the fact that prosecutrix had to brought thrice over before the Magistrate from the Nari Niketan to give statement. The prosecutrix gave statement only on 13.6.2008. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it would a moot point for the Trial Crl. Misc. No. M-11544 of 2010 [3] Court to consider whether it is a case of consent or rape as alleged in the FIR in the belated version given out by the prosecution. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of Illaqa/ Duty Magistrate concerned. (AJAI LAMBA) May 10, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?