In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-18188 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:5.7.2010 Pardeep Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. H.P.S. Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent-State. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The petitioner has filed this petition directly in this Court without first approaching the Sessions Court. According to the petitioner he has approached this Court in the first instance because of family rivalry in the village. It is submitted that the FIR registered against the petitioner is a pre-determined caste oriented and a fall out of elections to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Village Pathera which were held recently. In the said village there are two families of Brahmin caste and remaining families are Rajputs. The family of the petitioner is Brahmin and it supported Sarpanch Dalip Singh in the recent elections. The family of the complainant (prosecutrix) had supported Dinesh Yadav who lost the elections to Sarpanch Dalip Singh. The petitioner, it is submitted, has actively participated in the election process, therefore, the family of the complainant nursed a grudge against him. The half brother of the husband Cr. Misc. No.M-18188 of 2010 [2] of the complainant is the Superintendent of Police posted at Agra and it is alleged that he exerted his influence on the Police officials of Police Station Mahendergarh and got the present FIR (Annexure-P.2) registered against the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the influence exerted by the Superintendent of Police the petitioner has been unable to move the Court of Session for the grant of pre-arrest bail. A reference has been made to the medical report (Annexure-P.2) of the prosecutrix to contend that the same does not make out a case of rape. In response, learned counsel for the State and the complainant have opposed the application. It is submitted that the complainant has no reason to falsely implicate the petitioner. Besides, he was liable to approach the Sessions Court in the first instance. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, although there is no bar to directly approach this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail as the jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail is vested with this Court as also the Court of Session, however, in the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient to first approach the Sessions Court. The petitioner, therefore, in the event of his arrest shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. This order shall remain operative for a period of one week during which time the petitioner shall approach the Sessions Court which shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation made herein. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous petitions is Cr. Misc. No.M-18188 of 2010 [3] disposed of by relegating the petitioner to avail his remedy in the Sessions Court. However, to enable the petitioner to file the application for a period of one week in the event of his arrest he shall be admitted to bail. July 5, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*