IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-28611 of 2009 Date of decision : 9.12.2009 Rahil @ Rahul …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …. Respondent Present: Mr. Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Singh, AAG, 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, 376(2)(g)/34 Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Nuh. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Rajjak, father of the prosecutrix who has alleged that on 18.6.2007 at about 4.00 p.m. in the evening his daughter (prosecutrix) had gone to answer the call of nature on the road leading to Ujeena. Meanwhile a cream colour tempo i.e. TATA-407 came from the side of village Kairaka and four persons alighted from it and took away the daughter of the complainant forcibly by putting her in their TATA vehicle. The rear number plate of the vehicle was covered with mud. The complainant was passing near the crossing and he saw the incident from a distance of 2 killas. He raised a noise but the persons had taken away his daughter (prosecutrix) by kidnapping her. Crl. Misc. No. M-28611 of 2009 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted a certified copy of the judgment and order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nuh whereby two of the accused namely Aspak and Arshad have been acquitted. The petitioner is a juvenile and is being tried separately. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and submitted that the trial in the case against the petitioner is nearing completion. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that in terms of the judgment and order dated 29.10.2009 that has been taken on record, the prosecutrix appeared as PW-8 and she had stated that she had seen the accused present in the Court who had not raped her and also not kidnapped her. She did not identify the accused who were present in the Court. At the request of the learned Public Prosecutor, the prosecutrix was declared hostile and the learned Public Prosecutor was allowed to cross-examine her. In her cross-examination, she stated that she had heard the contents of her statement Ex.PE but she had not given any such statement to the Police. During further cross-examination, nothing could be brought out which could support the prosecution case. Haroon (PW9) also did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile and cross-examined. It was observed that material prosecution witnesses had not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. Therefore, the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. Accordingly, they were acquitted. Crl. Misc. No. M-28611 of 2009 [3] The name of the petitioner is also mentioned as respondent No.3 in the order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nuh. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has wrongly been mentioned as the trial of the petitioner was separated and is being tried by the Juvenile Board. Against the column where presence of counsel is recorded in the order dated 29.10.2009, it is mentioned that the accused Rahil (petitioner) was declared Juvenile and sent to Juvenile Justice Board. Therefore, keeping in view the order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court, Nuh, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner is granted the concession of bail. Accordingly, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh shall be admitted to bail. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE December 9, 2009 amit