IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-7593 of 2009 Date of decision : July 16, 2009 Gurlal Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Gurlal Singh has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 73 dated 1.10.2008 under sections 363, 366-A, 376, 506 read with section 34 IPC, Police Stlation Bariwala, District Muktsar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to prosecution version, prosecutrix was sleeping in her courtyard along with some other family members. At about 11.00 PM, the petitioner armed with kappa and his co-accused Sukhmeet Singh went there and threatened here and took her away. Outside the courtyard another co-accused Joginder Singh was present. All the three took the prosecutrix forcibly on motorcycle to a field. Accused had two motorcycles. All the three committed rape on the prosecutrix turn by turn. Criminal Misc. No. M-7593 of 2009 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecutrix is aged over 17 years as per birth certificate referred to by learned Additional Sessions Judage, Muktsar in order Annexure P/2. However, learned State counsel contends that as per school certificate, date of birth of the prosecutrix is 18.11.1993 and she was less than 15 years at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the prosecution story is improbable. However, at this stage no such finding can be given. It was also contended that the prosecutrix is habitual to sexual intercourse. However, there is no material on record to substantiate this contention, although in the MLR it is mentioned that the vagina admitted two fingers. However, the prosecutrix has categorically stated that she was subjected to sexual intercourse forcibly and against her wishes. In view of section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, the said statement has prima facie to be believed. Keeping in view the very serious allegations against the petitioner but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 16, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'