IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-34647 of 2009 Date of decision : 11.1.2010 Swaran Singh and another …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent Present : Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek regular bail in a case registered against them for the offences under Sections 336-A/34 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Sunita Rani who has alleged that she is 16 years of age and on the date of occurrence i.e. 16.9.2009 she had gone to her school on a bicycle for giving her examination. After examination, she along with her friend namely Nirmala Rani was coming back towards their village on their bi-cycles. When they reached about 2 kms ahead of Mamdot, one Maruti car came from Mamdot side at a high speed. Three persons with muffled faces and one person namely Mangal Singh @ Mangli (non-petitioner) who was of the complainant’s Crl. Misc. No. M-34647 of 2009 [2] village who the informant could identify, came out of the car. Mangal Singh @ Mangli in a loud voice said that the informant be put in the car. Then the informant was thrown on the rear seat of the car and her mouth was gagged. Then the car fled away at a high speed. When the car reached across the canal of village Lakho Ke Behram, then they allowed the informant to lift her face. The said four persons took the informant through the villages and Mangal Singh @ Mangli (non-petitioner) threatened her by saying that if her family members informed the police, then her brothers would have to face the consequences. When they reached near village Baghwala, then from the front side Chhinder Singh, a cousin brother of the informant along with one Balwinder Singh came there on a scooter. On seeing them, Mangal Singh @ Mangli (non-petitioner) threw the informant from the running car and fled away from there. The complainant disclosed about the incident to her cousin brother Chhinder Singh and then they were going to inform about the occurrence that the police met them and the statement of the informant was recorded. The motive was that Mangal Singh @ Mangli (non-petitioner) wanted to defame the informant. The name of the petitioners are not mentioned in the FIR. Learned State counsel has submitted that the names of the petitioners were disclosed by Mangal Singh during investigation. A statement of a co-accused by itself is not a substantial piece of evidence. In any case, the effect of the statement of a co-accused if brought on record is to be considered and gone into by the trial Court after evidence has been completed. The petitioners have been in custody since 30.9.2009 and 3.10.2009 respectively. The challan in Crl. Misc. No. M-34647 of 2009 [3] the case has been filed on 23.12.2009. Therefore, the custody of the petitioners is not required for the purposes of investigation. The car used in the occurrence has since been recovered. The case against the petitioners is to be established on the basis of evidence that has to be led by the prosecution. The charge in the case has not yet been framed. In the circumstances, the petitioners on their furnishing personal bonds and surety each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur shall be admitted to bail. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE January 11, 2010 amit