Criminal Misc. No. M-36905 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-36905 of 2010 Date of decision : March 28, 2011 Balkar Singh @ Rinku ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. R.K. Handa, Advocate for the complainant. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 28 dated 28.04.2010 under Sections 376/506 IPC at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that prosecutrix who was author of the FIR was 19 years old. On the date when she lodged the FIR she eloped with a person namely Buta Singh and regarding this incident, the accused-petitioner lodged two complaints on the same day i.e. Annexures P-1 & P-2. He has also referred to Annexure P-3 sworn by wife of Buta Singh wherein she alleged that Buta Singh was having illicit relations with Palwinder Kaur (prosecutrix herein). According to learned counsel, Buta Singh was involved in number of cases as would be clear Criminal Misc. No. M-36905 of 2010 2 from list given in Annexure P-8. He submits that in fact the petitioner has been implicated in the case at the behest of said Buta Singh. It being a case of false implication, the petitioner deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner had also lodged a FIR, Annexure P-9 for attempt to murder when he was assaulted on June 10, 2010 wherein Buta Singh figured as one of the accused. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail. He has placed on record affidavit of Arshdeep Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nabha and referred to inquiry report, Annexure R-1 annexed thereto. He submits that during investigation it had been found that rape case against the petitioner had been correctly registered. According to him, petitioner Balkar Singh is required by the investigating agency and he had been filing false applications to evade his arrest. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thoughts to the facts of the case. The FIR was lodged by prosecutrix Palwinder Kaur who alleged that on the intervening night of 24/25.04.2010 the entire family took meal and slept in the courtyard. She, her father and her mother were sleeping in the separate cots. At about 1.30 a.m. she got up to drink water. At that time her uncle’s son Balkar Singh @ Rinku (petitioner herein) got up from his cot and put his hand on her mouth. He forcibly took her away and raped her. When she tried to raise alarm, he threatened the prosecutrix. However, in the morning she disclosed the entire occurrence to her parents. When parents of the prosecutrix wanted the matter to die down, she complained to Buta Singh who got her admitted in the Rajindra Hospital Criminal Misc. No. M-36905 of 2010 3 where she was treated by the doctors and case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 376 & 506 IPC. During arguments, learned State counsel has submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary as medical evidence was available to show that rape was committed on Palwinder Kaur. That apart, the prosecutrix is standing by her statement with regard to rape committed by the petitioner on the intervening night of 24/25.04.2010. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. March 28, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE