In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-17472 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:20.7.2010 Pradeep and another .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent-State. Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them under Section 376 IPC. In the charge-report (challan) filed by the prosecution the petitioners were not sent-up for trial and were kept in column No.2 of the said report. However, during trial they have been summoned as additional accused in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the State on instructions has submitted that the custody of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. In consequence of the interim bail granted on 29.6.2010 the petitioners have put in appearance before the trial Court and have furnished Cr. Misc. No.M-17472 of 2010 [2] their bail bonds and the same have been accepted vide order dated 1.7.2010, a certified copy of which has been placed on record. The prosecution is to establish its case on the basis of evidence that is to be led. In the FIR which has been registered on 30.12.2009 on the statement of the prosecutrix the allegations of rape are against one Kamal Singh and not against the petitioners. Even on the statement of the prosecutrix recorded on 1.1.2010 she has named only Kamal Singh. During her medical examination she has named Kamal Singh as the person who had committed rape on her. It is after 28 days of the occurrence that is on 28.1.2010 that the prosecutrix stated that Kamal Singh had come to the mustard field accompanied by two persons and one of them was being called as Sonu (petitioner No.2). The name of petitioner No.1 is not mentioned as the person who had committed rape. However, it is stated that Sonu (petitioner No.2) committed rape. However, this aspect as to the effect of not initially naming petitioner No.2 as the person who committed rape is to be considered and gone into by the trial Court after evidence is led. In the afore-noticed facts and circumstances, the interim bail granted on 29.6.2010 is made absolute. The criminal miscellaneous stands disposed of. July 20, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*