BAJRANG Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of both the aforesaid petitions as the same have been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the Petitioners in case FIR No. 292 dated CRM M 29769 of 2010 2 19.11.2009 under Section 363, 366A, 376(2)(g), 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, registered at P S Julana, District Jind.

(2.) FOR facility of reference, the facts are being taken from CRM M 29769 of 2010. It is contended that the Petitioner is innocent and has been implicated falsely. It is further stated that no rape was committed on the prosecutrix and the present case was only for extracting money. It is further stated that Seema, prosecutrix was examined in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jind on 24.05.2010 on oath, in which, she had not named Bajrang -Petitioner and had given a different version from the FIR. It is further stated that the prosecutrix is more than 18 years. The medical report has falsified the story of the prosecutrix. Further, Bajrang -Petitioner is working as Workshop attendant at ITI Kandla (Muzaffarnagar) UP and is a regular employee of the institution and that he was not present at the time of the offence. Lastly, it was contended that Bajrang -Petitioner has been enroped on the basis of a statement made by one Ranbir.

(3.) HEARD .