IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 2921 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.7.2010 Gurdeep Singh and anr …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and anr …Respondents Present: Mr Abhinav Oberoi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr TS Salana, DAG Punjab. S.S.SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a complaint case i.e. Criminal Complaint 25 dated 28.2.2009 (P7) filed by respondent-2 against the petitioners. The petitioners are brother and sister respectively and the complainant is the wife of their brother. They have been living separately for the last two years. It is submitted that respondent-2 has filed a complaint in order to take revenge. Therefore, she has adopted this unusual means to harass them. Respondent-2 has filed a criminal complaint (P7) in which she has inter alia alleged that her marriage was solemnized with Gurmeet Singh. However, due to family dispute between the complainant and her husband, the complainant was residing with her mother at village Guno Majra. On 10.6.2008, the complainant along with her mother namely Smt Raj Kumari were sleeping in their house. At about 1.30 a.m., the door of the room was Cr Misc M- 2921 of 2010 2 opened by the complainant and her mother due to suffocation. On opening the door, Gurdeep Singh (petitioner-1) and Harpreet Kaur (petitioner-2) who is wife of Sukhwinder Singh @ Sodhi along with one unknown male person, after jumping over the wall of their house, came inside the room where the complainant and her mother were sleeping. Harpreet Kaur (petitioner-2) caught hold of the neck of the complainant and the unknown person locked the mother of the complainant in the kitchen and bolted the kitchen from outside. Harpreet Kaur (petitioner-2) on the asking of Gurdeep Singh (petitioner-1) bolted the door by leaving him (Gurdeep Singh – petitioner-1) in the room. Gurdeep Singh (petitioner-1), it is alleged, committed sexual intercourse without the consent of the complainant and after committing rape, he got the door opened from petitioner-2. Petitioner- 2, on entering the room, pressed the neck of the complainant. The complainant and her mother raised hue and cry, then the petitioners and the unknown person fled away from the spot. After that the complainant opened the bolt of the door of the kitchen where her mother had been locked. The Police registered a case FIR 67 dated 11.6.2008 at PS Kurali for the offences under Sections 376, 452/34 IPC. The medical examination of the complainant was conducted on 11.6.2008. In the complaint case, the Police investigated the case and in terms of its report (P5), came to the conclusion that the complainant had got a false case registered against the petitioners with a view to take revenge. It is mentioned in the said report (P5) that the DSP (HQ) SAS Nagar, had also mentioned in his investigation report dated 27.2.2008 that the allegations against the petitioners as leveled by the complainant were not proved. The complainant had been leveling false allegations against the petitioners to get land. In terms of the Chemical Examiner’s report dated 21.7.2008 (P6), no spermatozoa were detected in Cr Misc M- 2921 of 2010 3 the contents of Exhibits-I, II and III. Ex-I is High Vaginal Swab, Ex-II is Low Vaginal Swab and Ex-III is Pubic Hair. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant have submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious and rape has been committed on respondent-2 by petitioner-1. It is submitted that even though cancellation report has been prepared by the Police in the case, however, it has not been filed. In any case, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Sukh Ram of PS Kurali, submits that since the cancellation report has been prepared, the custody of the petitioners is not required for the purposes of investigation. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioners are liable to be arrested in view of the heinous offence that has been committed. It may be noticed that the allegations as made in the FIR have been found to be not proved as a cancellation report has also been prepared by the Police. The complainant and the petitioners are near relatives inasmuch as the complainant is the brother’s wife of the petitioners. The allegations, it is submitted, have been made to get land. The Chemical Examiner’s report (P6) is that no spermatozoa was detected in the contents of Exhibits-I to III. The prosecution is to prove and establish its case after evidence is led. Being a complaint case, the custody of the petitioners is not required for the purposes of investigation. The petitioners are not liable to be sent in custody by pre-judging their guilt. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim bail granted on 4.2.2010 is made absolute. This petition stands disposed of. 15.7.2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge