CRM No. M-17523 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-17523 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.7.2009 Kaptan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Surender Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered against him under Sections 363, 366-A, 376-G/506, 120-B IPC at Police Station Sadar, Gohana, District Sonepat. The FIR was lodged by father of the prosecutrix alleging that his daughter had been kidnapped by Dharminder alias Monu with intent to commit rape. The complainant also named certain other persons suspected to be involved in the crime. Investigation ensued. The prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of accused Virender from Mumbai. Her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that on 2.1.2008 at about 10.00 P.M. she was abducted by Kaptan (petitioner), Virender and Sonu. She was gagged and threatened that she would be killed. Later her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she clearly stated that Kaptan, the petitioner, Virender and Sonu committed rape upon her after kidnapping her. CRM No. M-17523 of 2009 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the initial statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the only allegation levelled by the prosecutrix against the petitioner was that he had kidnapped her. No allegation of rape was levelled. However, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she had improved her version and alleged that the petitioner had also raped her. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the matter. It is apparent that in the statement made before the court under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix clearly alleged that the petitioner alongwith others had committed rape upon her after kidnapping her. The mere fact that this allegation was missing from the statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in my considered view, is not relevant at this stage for the purpose of prayer for bail. The manner in which the crime was allegedly committed, does not entitle the petitioner to the concession of bail. There are allegations of kidnapping, gagging the petitioner, threatening her with dire consequences and thereafter commission of gang rape. Under the circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail. The petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE July 08, 2009 'rajpal'