Crl. Misc. No. M-32286 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-32286 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 30, 2011 Kulwinder Singh @ Tikka .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Divjyot Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab. Mr. D. S. Bali, Advocate for complainant Baby. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Accused Kulwinder Singh @ Tikka has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.81 dated 29.09.2011, under Sections 376 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The petitioner allegedly raped the complainant's daughter aged Crl. Misc. No. M-32286 of 2011 2 less than 18 years. On the preceding date of hearing, petitioner and complainant and her daughter were asked to appear in person in this Court today because counsel for the petitioner, at the time of motion hearing, stated that the prosecutrix had love affair with the petitioner, who is still ready to perform marriage with the prosecutrix. Accordingly, complainant and her daughter are present in person in the Court, but the petitioner has not turned up. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is waiting for preparation of entry-pass. However, it is already past 11:00 A.M. It has been stated on behalf of the complainant and prosecutrix that the petitioner is aged 45 years, whereas the prosecutrix is aged 17½ years only. The complainant and the prosecutrix have stated that they do not want marriage of the prosecutrix with the petitioner. Even otherwise, in view of the aforesaid age disparity of petitioner and prosecutrix, it would not be desirable that their marriage be solemnized. Keeping in view the allegations against the petitioner, the question of extending concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner does not arise. Accordingly, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case. November 30, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE