Crl. Misc. No. M-9773 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-9773 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.5.2011 Sanjay ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. at Police Station Sadar, Dadri, District Bhiwani, vide FIR No.404 dated 31st October, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not been named either in the FIR or in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He submits that the petitioner is being falsely implicated in the case. He is, thus, entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer. He submits that name of the petitioner figured during investigation. Even the prosecutrix has stated that four boys raped her on the fateful day one after another. He further submits that name of the petitioner also figures in the disclosure statement of co-accused Deepak. Crl. Misc. No. M-9773 of 2011 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The FIR was lodged by maternal uncle of the prosecutrix who brought to light the entire occurrence which took place some days back. Investigation ensued. During investigation statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She stated that the incident pertained to 23rd day of the month. She was sleeping in the courtyard. Four boys came there, one of whom gagged her mouth. She identified one of them as Deepak. They took her away to the fields. Thereafter, they tore her clothes and raped her one by one for two hours. They gave some money to her father who destroyed her clothes by burning them. In view of nature of allegations levelled in the FIR as well as statement of the prosecutrix, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. On the other hand, his custodial interrogation may be necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 6.5.2011 'rajpal'