In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-6688 of 2011 ..... Date of decision:30.3.2011 Parveen Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Deol, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. ...... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 21.10.2010 for the offences under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 IPC. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Jagdish son of Rameshwar who has alleged that his daughter aged 15 years and 10 months had been enticed by the petitioner on 28.9.2010 from their house. They had searched for her at their own level but she could not be traced. They had a suspicion that someone was doing wrong things with their daughter and her life is also in danger. It was requested that the daughter of the complainant be traced and legal action be taken. The daughter of the complainant-Jagdish has not been traced till date. It is alleged that the petitioner had kidnapped her and the complainant apprehends threat to her life. During the investigation of the Cr. Misc. No.M-6688 of 2011 [2] case the petitioner is said to have made a disclosure statement before the Police that he had kidnapped the daughter of the complainant on 28.9.2010 at about 11.00 p.m. and he dropped her at Narela Railway Station after committing rape on her. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the story is concocted by the complainant just to involve the petitioner in a false case due to rivalry. It is submitted that the petitioner has reliably learnt that the complainant had married his daughter in Bahadurgarh and he has been misguiding the Police. It is submitted that the complainant had earlier resorted to the same modus operandi regarding his other daughter. Later, he extracted money from the person named in the case and settled the matter. It is submitted that there is no legally admissible evidence in the case. It may be noticed that the daughter of the petitioner is said to have been enticed on 28.9.2010, however, the FIR has been registered on 21.10.2010. The daughter of the complainant has not been recovered till date. The challan in the case has been filed and the charges have been framed on 21.2.2011. The prosecution is to examine 8 witnesses to prove the case. The evidentiary value of the disclosure statement made by the petitioner before the Police is to be considered by the trial Court at the appropriate stage. In the facts and circumstances, it may be noticed that prima facie there appears no material on the basis of which it can be said that the petitioner had enticed the daughter of the complainant. Accordingly, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat shall be admitted to bail. Cr. Misc. No.M-6688 of 2011 [3] The criminal miscellaneous petitions stand disposed of. March 30, 2011. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*