IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-12658 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.7.2011 Sahib Singh ..Petitioner. Vs. Sunita Rani ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate for the complainant. Rajesh Bindal, J. While issuing notice of motion on 19.5.2011, this Court noticed following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner: “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per complaint story complainant-prosecutrix was in physical contact with the petitioner from 1999. He has further stated that undisputedly, both the parties are major. Mr.Deol has further stated that petitioner had been summoned to face trial in a complaint for an offence under Sections 376, 420, 506 IPC. Mr.Deol has further stated that prosecutrix was having intimacy with the accused and used to visit the residence of the petitioner and used to participate in the family functions of the petitioner and she was already aware of the fact that the petitioner- accused is married and having daughter. He, while placing certain photographs, has argued that prosecutrix has visited residence of the accused-petitioner on several occasions.” The petitioner in the present case has been summoned to face trial in a complaint filed by the respondent under Sections 376/506 IPC. In terms of the orders passed by this Court on 19.5.2011, the petitioner has - 2 - already put in appearance before the Court below and furnished his bail bonds. Considering the fact that complaint itself was made 10 years after the offence was allegedly committed for the first time and after summoning the petitioner is to face trial, I do not find that the petitioner is required to be taken into custody, interim bail granted to the petitioner on 19.5.2011 is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 14.7.2011 Judge Meenu