Crl. Misc. No.M-29340 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-29340 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.02.2011 Ramdin @ Nanai .. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .. Respondent Present:- Mr.R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harmeet Singh Deol, Addl.A.G., Haryana. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC at Police Station Fatehabad, District Fatehabad. The complainant Parmod Kumar has alleged that his daughter (prosecutrix) had been enticed by the petitioner on the pretext of marrying her. The petitioner took the daughter of the complainant on 02.10.2009 from Aggarwal Pipe Factory, Fatehabad. The complainant along with his other relatives had been searching for her but she was not found anywhere. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had married the prosecutrix and the marriage agreement is Annexure P-3, which is placed on record. Besides, the prosecutrix also filed a complaint against her father-Parmod Kumar and two unknown persons for the offences under Sections 504, 506 and 452 IPC. It is also submitted that the petitioner had been living with the prosecutrix for two Crl. Misc. No.M-29340 of 2010 ::2:: years. Therefore, it is submitted that the offences, as alleged, have not been made out against the petitioner. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution case in the trial; besides, all the witnesses except for one have been examined in the case. The case before the learned trial Court is now fixed for 25.02.2011 on which date, it is submitted, that the prosecution evidence in all likelihood would be closed. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution case before the learned trial Court. She appeared as PW-1 and she has stated that the petitioner committed rape on her. The effect of the said statement is to be considered and gone into by the learned trial Court; besides, it may be noticed that the prosecution has almost completed its evidence. The trial in the case is nearing completion. Therefore, it would be inexpedient to grant the concession of bail at this stage. In the facts and circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) February 17, 2011 JUDGE sukhpreet