CRM No. M-28420 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CRM No. M-28420 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.11.2009 Anil ..... Petitioner vs State of Haryana ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R. A. Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. Ritu Punj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail pending bail to the petitioner, who is an accused in FIR No. 314 dated 24.5.2009, registered at Police Station City Jind, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegations in the FIR are totally improbable. There is no medical evidence to support the allegations. Initially, DDR was got recorded on 23.5.2009 on the statement of the prosecutrix when her husband and brother were present alleging therein that the petitioner had raped her. On the next date, FIR was got registered by alleging that for the last 1½ year the petitioner had been committed rape with her under threat. This clearly establishes that these efforts are only to implicate the petitioner. He further submitted that the prosecutrix is 32 years of age whereas the petitioner was merely 18½ years at the time of alleged incident. There is no independent witness as it is only the statements of the family members of the prosecutrix which have been recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. He further submitted that though the prosecutrix alleged that she had accompanied the petitioner to his Village Siwan, District Jind, and thereafter to Delhi and was in contact with the petitioner on her mobile phone but still nothing has come during investigation as to whether the prosecutrix ever travelled beyond her place of residence and further whether her family members ever tried to contact her when the case set up is that she was missing from the house for the last 2-3 days. Though the prosecutrix was missing from the house since 20.5.2009, there is delay of three days in lodging even the DDR and the FIR was got registered thereafter. CRM No. M-28420 of 2009 -2- On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that considering the charges against the petitioner, the delay is not fatal. It was a case of dignity of a woman who had been allured by the petitioner to fulfill his sexual desire. There is ample evidence in the form of statements of the husband and brother of the prosecutrix. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of bail pending trial. Without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the controversy which may effect the case of either of the parties and considering the fact that there is no independent witness or evidence available with the prosecution except statements of the family members of the prosecutrix recorded by the investigating agency. There is no medical evidence to support the case of the prosecution and further that though admittedly the prosecutrix was carrying her mobile and was in contact with the petitioner, still no call details thereof has been found out. The age of prosecutrix is 32 years. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail pending trial subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Jind. The petition stands disposed of. 13.11.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge