Crl. Misc. No. M-20650 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-20650 of 2010 Date of decision: 03.08.2010 Pardeep Kumar .. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana. .. Respondent Present:- Mr.H.S.Gill, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vivek Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.C.Gupta, Sr. DAG, Haryana. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 19.06.2010 for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, Police Station Mahendergarh, District Mahendergarh. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of the prosecutrix. It is alleged by the prosecutrix that on 18.06.2010 at 11.00 pm, she was watching television in her room and her in-laws were sleeping outside. On seeing her, the petitioner came down from the roof and entered her room. He got hold of the prosecutrix and shut her mouth with a handkerchief. Thereafter, the petitioner picked her up and took her to the roof-top where she was undressed. Thereafter, the petitioner committed rape on her and threatened that in case, she disclosed the incident to any one, she would be killed. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations as made are totally baseless. A reference Crl. Misc. No. M-20650 of 2010 ::2:: has been made to the Medical Legal Report, (Annexure P-1), in terms of which it is submitted that there is no injury mark on the person of the prosecutrix. Besides, it is submitted that the petitioner has been involved in the case due to his party faction in the village. It is also submitted that registration of the FIR against the petitioner is pre-determined caste oriented and consequence of the election to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Village Pathera, which were held recently. In the said village, there were two families of Brahmin caste and the remaining are of Rajputs. The family of the petitioner is Brahmin and had supported Dalip Singh in the elections. The petitioner had actively participated in the election process and therefore, the family of the complainant nursed a grudge against him. The brother of the husband of the complainant is Superintendent of Police, posted at Agra and due to their pressure of the Police officials of Police Station Mahendergarh, District Mahendergarh, FIR has been registered against the petitioner. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner has made wrong averments to the effect that he has joined the investigation whereas the petitioner has never joined the investigation and is required by the Police. It is also stated that the prosecutrix has clearly stated that the petitioner committed rape on her. Even as per Medical Legal Report (Annexure P-1) it is submitted that the doctor has opined that possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. It is also stated that no relative of the complainant is posted as Superintendent of Police at Agra. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the allegations against the petitioners are that he committed rape on the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix is aged 25 years and the petitioner is aged 21 years. The Medical Legal Report (Annexure P-1) though records that there is no mark of injury on the body of the Crl. Misc. No. M-20650 of 2010 ::3:: prosecutrix, however, the doctor has opined that possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. The matter requires to be considered and investigated by the Police. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.S.SARON) August 03, 2010 JUDGE Sukhpreet