Criminal Misc.-M No. 29263 of 2011 [ 1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.-M No. 29263 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 2.11.2011
Kala Singh
.. Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab .. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. D. S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K. S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even as per
the allegations in the FIR, the complainant was eight months’ pregnant at
the time when the complaint was made to the police, meaning thereby the
rape must have been committed eight months prior thereto. It was not
disclosed by her to any one during this period. She has destroyed the
evidence to link the petitioner with the rape as foetus was aborted on
21.8.2011 without even intimating the police though the FIR was already
registered on 9.8.2011.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that
in the enquiry by the police, it was found that the complainant was living
with the petitioner, whereas other brother of the petitioner and the father
were living in a separate house. After the FIR was got registered on
9.8.2011, the complainant was examined in Primary Health Centre at
Moonak on 19.8.2011 and she was found to be pregnant. She did not
inform the date on which she had gone to Kaithal, i.e., her parents’ house
Criminal Misc.-M No. 29263 of 2011 [ 2]
and also the fact that she had got her check-up done at Kirti Hospital,
Kaithal on 18.8.2011; the head of the child in womb was deformed and she
was to get the foetus aborted. Even intimation about the abortion on
21.8.2011 was not given to the police.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering
the fact that the alleged occurrence took place about eight months prior to
the registration of the FIR and the complainant got the foetus aborted
without even intimating the police, though the FIR was already registered,
leaving no scope for DNA test, in my opinion, the petitioner is not required
to be taken into custody for interrogation. He is directed to appear before
the Investigating Officer on 11.11.2011 at 10.00 AM for joining
investigation. In case of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on
furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating
Officer. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when
called upon for further investigation. He shall also be bound by all the
conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
The petition stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
2.11.2011
mk
