Crl. Misc. No. M-9625 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-9625 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.3.2011 Jeeta alias Surinder ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. 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 Sections 376 and 420 IPC at Police Station City Ferozepur, District Ferozepur, vide FIR No.39 dated 3rd March, 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. According to him, even from a perusal of the complaint, it is clear that prosecutrix admits consensual sex with the petitioner. He is, thus, entitled to the concession of pre- arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix Seetu, who alleged that the petitioner had committed sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage. When the petitioner refused to marry the Crl. Misc. No. M-9625 of 2011 prosecutrix, she lodged the instant complaint. It appears that pursuant to the complaint, the investigating agency got the prosecutrix medically examined. It was found that prosecutrix had been subject to sexual intercourse and she was a minor at the time she was first exploited by the petitioner. In view of the fact that prosecutrix is stated to be a minor at the time, the petitioner sexually exploited her, her consent would be immaterial. I am, thus, of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 30.3.2011 'rajpal'