SATISH Vs. STATE OF HARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Sonia alleging that she had been raped by Anil, Narinder and the petitioner on 16-6-2011.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a complaint filed by Sonia to SHO, Police Station, Panipat in writing on 17-6-2011 wherein she had levelled allegations against two boys only i.e. Anil and Narinder. The counsel submits that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the said information but the petitioner has been involved in the case on account of the fact that there is a dispute regarding demarcation of land between the father of the prosecutrix and the father of the petitioner. It is claimed that on 15-6-2011 demarcation of the disputed property in the village had been conducted and feeling aggrieved by the said demarcation, the prosecutrix has involved the petitioner in the case of rape.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. The story of the prosecution for false implication on the basis of the alleged first information (Annexure P-3) cannot be believed at this stage. In view of the fact that the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC has also been recorded in which the petitioner has been specifically named to have committed the offence of rape, it is premature to form an opinion that on account of land dispute the father of the prosecutrix has persuaded his daughter to level allegations of rape against the petitioner in order to settle the civil dispute.