Crl. Misc. No. M-17657 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-17657 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 07, 2009 Amit .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. A. S. Kalra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Amit has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No.127 dated 15.03.2009, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 419, 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Rohtak. FIR was lodged by cousin of the prosecutrix alleging that the prosecutrix went missing from the complainant's house at Rohtak on 08.03.2009 and the complainant suspected that the petitioner had kidnapped the prosecutrix aged about 17 years 02 months. The petitioner and the prosecutrix belonged to Village Shaudapur, District Panipat. The prosecutrix was recovered on 22.03.2009 from Delhi from Crl. Misc. No. M-17657 of 2009 2 the custody of petitioner's co-accused Rishipal. The prosecutrix made statement Annexure P-2 under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, wherein she stated that the petitioner had been stalking her for almost four years and asking her to marry him. On 29.01.2009, at the asking of the petitioner, the prosecutrix went to Delhi, but the petitioner did not reach there. The prosecutrix, after taking mobile telephone of Rishipal, contacted the petitioner on telephone. However, the petitioner recorded the telephonic conversation and told the parents of the prosecutrix that the prosecutrix had gone to Delhi. Her parents, accompanied by the petitioner, went to Delhi and brought her back. Thereafter, on 08.03.2009, the prosecutrix telephonically contacted Rishipal to vindicate her stand, but Rishipal called her to Delhi. She accordingly went there and stayed with him. It was from there that she was recovered on 22.03.2009. In supplementary statement made to the police, the prosecutrix alleged that Rishipal raped her at the instigation of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. No allegation of rape was made by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Even thereafter, allegation of rape was made by her only against Rishipal and not against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 22.03.2009 i.e. for more than four months. The plea of the prosecutrix that she was raped by Rishipal at the instigation of the petitioner has to be taken with a pinch of salt because Rishipal was allegedly helping the prosecutrix against the petitioner himself. Be that as it may, since the prosecutrix herself went to Delhi on 08.03.2009 and stayed there with Rishipal on her own, there is no justification for declining the benefit of bail to the petitioner against whom the only allegation in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. made by the prosecutrix was that on Crl. Misc. No. M-17657 of 2009 3 29.01.2009, the petitioner had asked her to go to Delhi. In view of the aforesaid, without meaning to comment anything on merits, the instant bail petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Rohtak. August 07, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE