Crl. Misc. No.M-6394 of 2011 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-6394 of 2011 Date of decision: 01.03.2011 Baljinder Singh .. Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab .. Respondent Present:- Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C. in respect of offences under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 IPC. The petitioner, therefore, prays for the grant of anticipatory bail in the said case. The FIR, in the case, has been registered on the statement of the complainant-Baldev Singh who has five daughters. His eldest daughter is aged 14-15 years and next to her is aged about 12-13 years. The complainant was residing on rent. Earlier, they were residing at Aawa Basti on rent. Near their house at Aawa Basti, there was the house of Satpal alias Sattu (co-accused) who was running a CD Cassettes shop near Sanghera Chowk. Baljinder Singh (petitioner) was on visiting terms with said Satpal alias Sattu and he was coming to the house of the complainant also, which was nearby. Both Satpal Singh and Baljinder Singh (petitioner) had been coming to the house of the complainant. On 25.05.2009, the complainant who runs a rickshaw went for his work and his wife had also gone to the market for purchasing grocery. At about 7.00 p.m., when the complainant reached home, his two elder daughters were Crl. Misc. No.M-6394 of 2011 ::2:: not at home. He was searching for his daughters with his relatives but he could not find them. The complainant then had full apprehension that his daughters had been taken by Satpal Singh and Baljinder Singh (petitioner) on the pretext of marriage. Both the daughters of the complainant were minors. It was request that legal action be taken against Satpal Singh and Baljinder Singh (petitioner). The FIR was accordingly registered. The mother of Baljinder Singh namely Harpal Kaur filed a representation before the Seniior Superintendent of Police, Barnala, that her son Baljinder Singh (petitioner) had been falsely named by the complainant-Baldev Singh. It was submitted that he works as a Conductor on a truck and had gone to Gujarat at the time of the incident with his mother's sister's husband (Masar). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the police investigated the case and found that Baljinder Singh (petitioner) was not present at the time of incident and accordingly, he was not sent up for trial. During the course of trial, the statement (Annexure P-2) of the elder daughter of the complainant was recorded as PW-9 by the learned trial Court. She in her statement stated that Baljinder Singh (petitioner) developed illicit relations with her sister and after threatening her had raped her. Two months earlier both these persons namely Satpal Singh and Baljinder Singh (petitioner) had induced her as also her younger sister on the pretext of marrying them. The statement (Annexure P-3) of the younger daughter of the complainant was recorded by the learned trial Court as PW-10 in which, she reiterates that Baljinder Singh (petitioner) developed illicit relations with her and after threatening her had raped her. Two months earlier also the accused namely Satpal and Baljinder Singh (petitioner) had induced her and her sister on the pretext of marrying them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, on an application filed Crl. Misc. No.M-6394 of 2011 ::3:: under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution, summoned the petitioner vide order dated 15.01.2011 (Annexure P-4). He had been kept in column No.2 in the final report (Challan) filed by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed an application for grant of pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which has been dismissed vide order dated 11.02.2011 (Annexure P-7). The petitioner has then filed the present petition. It is submitted that petitioner was found innocent during investigation and was not sent up for trial. Therefore, his custody is not required for the purposes of investigation; besides, it is submitted that the petitioner is ready to join the trial in the case. It may be noticed that the case is one of offence under Section 376 IPC in which two minor daughters of the complainant are said to have been raped by Satpal Singh (co-accused) and Baljinder Singh (petitioner). The final report (Challan) that has been filed by the prosecution merely mentions that the petitioner was found innocent during the investigation. The enquiry report and other material on the basis of which, the said conclusion was reached at has not been placed before this Court. The question whether the petitioner-Baljinder Singh had indeed gone to Gujarat, as alleged by Harpal Kaur (mother of the petitioner) in her application submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala, must have been considered and determined by the police as the petitioner was not sent up for trial. The entire material in this regard is with the prosecution and must have been submitted before the learned trial Court. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner files an application for grant of regular bail before the learned trial Court itself, which shall consider the same in accordance with the law. However, in the meantime, it would be just and expedient that till Crl. Misc. No.M-6394 of 2011 ::4:: such application is decided, the petitioner is granted interim bail. Accordingly, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out as the case relates to rape being committed on minor girls. However, in case, the petitioner files an application for regular bail within three days of the receipt of copy of this order, the Court concerned shall, on his furnishing personal bond and surety, admit him to interim bail and thereafter hear the application for grant of regular bail on merits on the basis of material available before it. Nothing stated or observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall consider the case independently and in accordance with law. In the light of the above observations, the criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) March 01, 2011 JUDGE sukhpreet