Crl. Misc. No.M-32017 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM Nos.66560-61 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. No.M-32017 of 2010 Date of decision: 04.01.2011 Nishan Singh @ Shan Singh .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .. Respondents Present:- Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.M.C.Berry, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr.Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate, for the complainant. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. CRM Nos.66560-61 Counter-affidavit of the complainant along with enquiry status report (Annexure C-1) attached with the counter-affidavit are taken on record subject to just exceptions. Criminal miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. CRM No.M-32017 of 2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 11.01.2006 at Police Station 'B' Division, Amritsar, for the offences under Sections 366, 376 and 120-B IPC. The FIR, in the case, has been registered on the complaint of prosecutrix, who has alleged that she is 24 years of age and resides at her house. She was on good terms with one Kirandeep Kaur, who resides near her house. The said Kirandeep Kaur introduced her to Crl. Misc. No.M-32017 of 2010 ::2:: Nishan Singh @ Shan Singh (petitioner). On 12.12.2005, Kirandeep Kaur came to the house of the prosecutrix and told her that there is an interview for her job in the Spice Company. Kirandeep Kaur asked the prosecutrix to accompany her. The prosecutrix believing her went with her. She (Kirandeep Kaur) first took her (prosecutrix) at a juice shop at Baba Sahib Chowk, Amritsar, where Baljit Singh (non-petitioner) and Nishan Singh @ Shan Singh (petitioner) were already sitting. Four glasses of juice were lying there. Kirandeep Kaur introduced the prosecutrix to Nishan Singh @ Shan Singh (petitioner). Then, Baljit Singh (non-petitioner) said that when he visited Kirandeep Kaur, he watched her (prosecutrix) and he made up his mind to have friendship with her. The prosecutrix was surprised on hearing this kind of conversation. She, then, told Kirandeep Kaur that she thought that she (Kirandeep Kaur) was a gentle lady and for the said reason she had come with her. Besides, she asked Kirandeep Kaur as to why she introduced her (prosecutrix) to the petitioner and Baljit Singh. The prosecutrix also said that she belongs to a respectable family. On this, Kirandeep Kaur and Nishan Singh @ Shan Singh (petitioner) said that Baljit Singh (non-petitioner) was also a gentle person and she should develop relations with him. The petitioner said that any girl, who is desired by Baljit Singh, they get her for him by all means. Then the prosecutrix asked Kirandeep Kaur, etc. that she did not like their attitude and she wanted to go home. On this, Kirandeep Kaur, Baljit Singh and the petitioner said that if she did not like this, they could, however, remain friends amongst themselves. The above three accused in connivance with each other, it is alleged, offered her (prosecutrix) a glass of juice. On drinking the juice, the prosecutrix lost her conscious. She regained her conscious after about four days and she found herself confined in a room with Baljit Singh (non-petitioner) standing there, who disclosed to the Crl. Misc. No.M-32017 of 2010 ::3:: prosecutrix that he had kidnapped her and brought her to Bangalore. She asked him to let her go. Then the abovesaid accused threatened her that if she cried, then, she would be killed. He, further, added that no one would even know about her dead body. On that night, the accused-Baljit Singh raped the prosecutrix and forced her to make physical relations with him and when she refused, then, he threatened her that his companions Kirandeep Kaur and Nishan Singh @ Shan Singh (petitioner) were in Amritsar and through them, he (Baljit Singh) would manage to finish her family. It is alleged that Baljit Singh against the wishes of prosecutrix raped her on that night and thereafter he continued to rape her. Whenever she objected, he beat her and threatened to kill her. On 12.12.2005, the prosecutrix did not reach home and her family members knew that she had gone with Kirandeep Kaur and they started putting pressure on Kirandeep Kaur. Kirandeep Kaur through her companion Nishan Singh @ Shan Singh (petitioner) threatened the family members of the prosecutrix to finish them. They threatened the family of the prosecutrix that none of them should search for her or file any complaint with the police. Thereafter, the father of the prosecutrix lodged a complaint against Nishan Singh @ Shan Singh (petitioner) on 25.12.2005. Later, one door of the room where the prosecutrix had been detained, was found open and finding an opportunity, the prosecutrix on 29.12.2005 at 4.20 intimated her father on his telephone. She informed that Baljit Singh, etc. had detained her and confined her in a room at Bangalore. Besides, Baljit Singh has been threatening to kill her. Thereafter, the father and cousin-Harjit Singh of the prosecutrix while searching for her reached Bangalore and freed her from the clutches of the accused-Baljit Singh and brought her to Amritsar. It is alleged that Baljit Singh, Nishan Singh @ Shan Singh (petitioner) and Kirandeep Kaur in connivance and in conspiracy with each other were threatening the Crl. Misc. No.M-32017 of 2010 ::4:: prosecutrix and her family that in case she disclosed regarding the rape incident to any one, they would be finished. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that according to the prosecutrix there was relationship between Baljit Singh and the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix had run away with him to get married. Later on, the present FIR has been registered wherein the petitioner had also been implicated. It is submitted that it is highly impractical that the prosecutrix would remain unconscious after taking a glass of juice. It is also impossible to take a girl in an unconscious state to Bangalore and for her to remain unconscious for four days without any food and medical aid. It is submitted that all the allegations as made are false; besides, being cooked up. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially granted pre-arrest bail. Later, he was told by the Police Authorities that his custody is not required and therefore, he went abroad. The petitioner was then declared a proclaimed offender by the learned Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 06.07.2010. When the petitioner came to know that he was wanted as a proclaimed offender, he surrendered before the police on 13.08.2010. He was produced in the Court on 14.08.2010 and since then he is in custody. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner has been absconding from 2006 till 2010. It is submitted that co-accused of the petitioner namely Baljit Singh is still absconding and has not been arrested. Besides, it is stated that the case before the learned trial Court is at a crucial stage and the evidence of the prosecutrix is to be recorded on 21.01.2011, Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner has been making efforts to get a fake passport Crl. Misc. No.M-32017 of 2010 ::5:: made on another name. It is submitted that the petitioner after being granted pre-arrest bail had absconded from India to evade the process of law. The petitioner came back owing to some problems in his stay in Malaysia. In a bid to get a passport made on a different name, i.e. on the name of Shan Singh, he also gave his old address as C-193, Gurlal Bazar, New Partap Nagar, G.T. Road, Amritsar, and he mentioned his new address as Plot No.407-A, New Azad Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar. It is submitted that the petitioner had in fact sold both his houses in 2007. A reference is made to the police report (Annexure C-1). Learned counsel for the petitioner has denied these aspects. It is submitted that the petitioner does not have any house in his name. It is also submitted that the petitioner has submitted his original passport with the Passport Authorities. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. It may be noticed that the petitioner had absconded after he had been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2006 passed in CRM No.M-9370 of 2006. Thereafter, he was declared a proclaimed offender on 06.07.2010. The petitioner was then arrested on 13.08.2010 and produced in the Court on 14.08.2010. Since then, he is in custody. The Challan in the case has been presented in Court and the case is fixed for evidence and the statement of the prosecutrix is to be recorded on 21.01.2011. There are also allegations against the petitioner that he had been attempting to get a duplicate passport made in the name of Shan Singh. The Inquiry Status Report (Annexure C-1) of the Ministry of External Affairs shows that the petitioner had submitted an application on 16.07.2010 which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is an application for renewal. The police report in the said application is, however, adverse and a show cause Crl. Misc. No.M-32017 of 2010 ::6:: notice has been sent to him by post. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it would be inexpedient to grant the concession of bail at this stage. The petitioner may, however, file a fresh petition after evidence of the prosecutrix is recorded. In the circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed at this stage. January 04, 2011 (S.S. SARON) sukhpreet JUDGE