CRM No.M-32894 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-23.11.2010 Sukhcharan Singh alias Raju son of Jagga Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.P.K.S.Phoolka Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Jaspreet Singh, A.A.G., Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Petitioner Sukhcharan Singh alias Raju son of Jagga Singh, has instituted the instant petition for regular bail in a case registered against him, by virtue of FIR No.40 dated 23.4.2010 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC by the police of Police Station Nahianwala, Distt.Bathinda, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 4. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that on 15.4.2010 at about 3 A.M. the petitioner allured and kidnapped the prosecutrix. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Surjit Singh, father of the prosecutrix, the present case was registered against the petitioner, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 5. The version of the prosecution stands falsified by the statement (Annexure P1) of the prosecutrix (PW1) Maya Kaur given in the trial Court, where, inter-alia, she has stated that one Sohan Singh, member panchayat of CRM No.M-32894 of 2010 2 village in connivance with her father (complainant) is trying to kill her. Sukhcharan Singh alias Raju is her husband. He did not commit any rape with her forcibly or against her wishes. She did not give any statement to the police against the petitioner. Meaning thereby, instead of supporting, the prosecutrix has totally demolished the prosecution version in its entirety. In these circumstances, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to regular bail. 6. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 13.5.2010 and since then he is in judicial custody. No useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 7. Therefore, taking into consideration the statement (Annexure P1) of the prosecutrix and totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as described here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial, to my mind, the present petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 8. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the petition for regular bail is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Area Magistrate, Bathinda. 9. Needless to state here that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. 23.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge