IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 25143 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.2.2011 Surinder @ Nitu …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and anr …Respondents Present: Mr DS Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr HS Deol, Addl AG Haryana. Mr Surinder Singh, Advocate for the complainant. S.S.SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 377, 376(g), 342 , 323 and 506 IPC. In the FIR (P1), which has been registered on the statement of the prosecutrix, it has been alleged by her that on 14.11.2009 at night, she went to meet her friend at Chippi Colony, Salarpur Khera. On reaching there, she came to know that her friend has vacated the room and gone elsewhere. When she was going back, she met Jaseem on the way who was known to her. Jaseem stated that it was late at night and he would leave her till the main road. At about 9.40 p.m., the prosecutrix and Jaseem reached Shakti Timber Store, Sector 21. Three persons were standing there on the road. One of them the prosecutrix later came to know was Surinder @ Nitu (petitioner). She was forcibly held and taken inside the room. When she raised hue and cry, then Surinder @ Nitu (petitioner) hit her on her left foot with a shoe and also gave an elbow blow on her waist and told her that if Cr Misc M-25143 of 2010 2 she raised hue and cry, then she would be killed. She was directed to do whatever he said. Then Surinder @ Nitu (petitioner), it is alleged, forcibly without her consent, raped her and two persons whose names she came to know lateron were Sham Kumar and Kamal Dev Parshad, were standing outside and keeping guard. Thereafter, Sham Kumar it is alleged, committed rape on her and then Kamal Dev Parshad also committed rape on her. Then the said three persons left her and ran away. It was quite late in the night and the prosecutrix was very much afraid and as such, she went to her rented house at Kapashera and then she went to the Police Station to inform about the incident when the Police met her at C1 check post. The said three persons had forcibly raped her and caused injuries. The prosecutrix has now deposed an affidavit dated 23.9.2010 that she had stated before the Police that three persons had raped her on 14.11.2009 at night. The names of two persons, it is submitted, were Sham Kumar and Kamal Dev but the name of the third person was not known to her. Later, she came to know that Surinder @ Nitu (petitioner) had also been arrayed by the Police whereas Surinder @ Nitu (petitioner) had not done any wrong act on her nor was he present at the spot. She had fully verified this. The Police had wrongly arrayed Surinder @ Nitu (petitioner) in the FIR. She had no objection if the present petition filed by the petitioner was allowed. The prosecutrix, it appears, has resiled from her statement; however, this aspect is to be considered by the investigating authorities or the Court as the case may be. The Public Prosecutor may even consider getting her declared hostile and cross examine her. For the present, the petitioner is not an accused. Cr Misc M-25143 of 2010 3 In consequence of the interim bail granted by this Court on 23.9.2010, the petitioner, it is stated, has joined the investigation. Learned counsel for the State submits that the custody of the petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigation. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has no objection if the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the interim bail granted on 23.9.2010 is made absolute. 15.2.2011 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge