In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-756 of 2011 ..... Date of decision:13.1.2011 Pardeep Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 19.6.2010 for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The FIR has been registered on the statement of the complainant who is a victim of rape. It is alleged by the complainant that on 18.6.2010 at about 11.00 p.m., she was watching television in the room of her house. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law were sleeping outside. On seeing her alone in the house, the petitioner came down from the roof and entered into her room. Immediately after entering her room, he caught hold of the the complainant and closed her mouth with a handkerchief. Thereafter, he took her on the roof by lifting her. He tore her clothes and threw her on the cot. He undressed himself and fell on the complainant. The complainant was facing menstruation at that time. It is alleged that the petitioner committed rape on the complainant and also threatened her that if Cr. Misc. No.M-756 of 2011 [2] she disclosed about it to anybody, he would finish her. Saying so, he came down from the roof. He had also given her fist and slap blows. It was requested that stern action be taken against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is 21 years of age and is a married person having two minor children. Besides, the complainant is also a married lady. Houses of the petitioner and the complainant are adjacent to each other and the complainant is in her twenties. It is submitted that it cannot be said that the petitioner would take the complainant on the roof of the house by lifting her and gagging her mouth with a handkerchief especially when her father-in- law and mother-in-law were sleeping outside the room where the complainant was watching television. In the given facts and circumstances, it is submitted that from the allegations disclosed, it appears to be a case of consent. The prosecutrix was medically examined on 19.6.2010 at 6.30 p.m. In the medical report it is mentioned; “hymen – torn and healed. No fracture. No fresh bleeding from hymen”. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said report falsifies the entire prosecution case. Besides, it is submitted that the FIR was lodged at 5.30 p.m. on 19.6.2010 whereas the incident had occurred at 11.00 p.m. on 18.6.2010. Therefore, there is a delay of about 18 hours in the registration of the FIR although the place of incident is situated about 11 Kms. from the Police Station and telephone facility is available. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the complainant has levelled specific allegations of Cr. Misc. No.M-756 of 2011 [3] committing rape on her. In the medical report, it has been opined that possibility of rape being committed cannot be ruled out. The trial in the case is going on. The contentions as raised by the petitioner are to be considere and gone into by the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage after evidenced has been led. The petitioner has alleged that it appears to be a case of consent. This would, however, mean that the fact of having committed sexual intercourse is more or less accepted. The question whether it is a case of consent or rape is to be to be considered and determined by the learned trial Court. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of bail is made out at this stage. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. January 13, 2011. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*