In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-28890 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.9.2010 Sanjeev Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Rahul Vats, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 228 dated 30.5.2010, under Sections 363, 366A and 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sarai Khawaja District Faridabad. The contents of the FIR, as reproduced in para 11 of the petition, read as under:- “It is respectfully submitted that myself son of late Shri Chandeshwar Singh, am living with my family consisting of 5 members in House No.82, Gali No.9, Surya Vihar, Part-I Sehatpur. My daughter Manisha Kumari is 14 Criminal Misc. No.M-28890 of 2010 (O&M) -2- years old. In front of my house Girja Shankar, his wife and his son Sanjeev Kumar live. On 28.5.2010, Girja Shankar, his wife and his son Sanjeev Kumar had in collusion and in connivance with each other seduced my daughter Manisha aged 14 years and lured her for marriage with their son and they had thus seduced and induced her and had taken her with them along with their son Sanjeev Kumar somewhere. Till today, I have remained searching for my daughter but I could not get any clue and I could not find her. Accordingly, it is requested that keeping in view the facts quoted above, legal action may kindly be taken.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is 18 years old and has been falsely involved in this case. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on S.Varadarajan vs. State of Madras, 1965 AIR (SC) 942; Narinder vs. State of Haryana 2004 (3) Crl.C.C. 306 and Vinod vs. State of Haryana 2010 (3) RCR (Criminal) 309. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. The prosecutrix in the present case is aged about 14 years. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, while declining the bail application filed by the petitioner, reveals that the prosecution evidence is likely to be concluded by 29.10.2010 and Criminal Misc. No.M-28890 of 2010 (O&M) -3- the statement of the accused would be recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 30.10.2010. In these circumstances, keeping in view the seriousness of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, no ground for grant of bail is made out. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner as these are based on different facts. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 30, 2010 anita