IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.33305 -M of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 22, 2010 ASHOK KUMAR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of two petitions viz. CRM 33305-M of 2009 (Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana) and CRM 281-M of 2010 (Rampal @ Sonu vs. State of Haryana). Both these petitions have been filed under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, for bail case FIR No.121 dated 5.6.2009 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 216, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Julana, District Jind. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that Ajit (co-accused) has been allowed bail vide order dated 14.1.2010, while dealing with CRM 33908-M of 2009 (Ajit vs. State of Haryana). Criminal Misc. No.33305 -M of 2009 2 It transpires that the prosecutrix is more than 17 years of age. In the statement given under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, she admits that she had been living with Manish at Panipat for 1-1/2 months. The police arrested Manish and the prosecutrix from Panipat. In subsequent part of the statement, the prosecutrix states that Manish did bad act with her 2/3 times and two other persons; namely, Sonu and Ajit and two more persons not named, also committed rape. The conduct of the prosecutrix, prima facie, indicates that she went with Manish of her own accord and lived with him for 1-1/2 months, although she was not married with Manish. Ajit has been allowed bail. The name of petitioner-Ashok Kumar does not find mention in the FIR or in the statement under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. So far the other petitioner-Rampal @ Sonu is concerned, his case would be akin to the case of Ajit. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. February 22, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?