IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-33518 of 2008 Date of decision : 15.01.2009 Tilak Raj ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent. BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Hemender Goswami, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his case is identical to that of Harbans Lal (co-accused) who has already granted bail vide Annexure P-2. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the present petitioner is entitled to bail on the same terms. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that prosecutrix namely Kamlesh @ Jyoti was only 14 years of age at that time and in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has specifically named the petitioner as well as co- accused Harbans Lal. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order Annexure P-2. Perusal of Annexure P-2 clearly shows that co- accused Harbans Lal was granted bail on entirely different grounds as the Court found it quite improbable that he committed rape in the presence of his wife. However, the case of the petitioner is clearly distinguishable. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the present petition is dismissed. 15.01.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE