ARSHAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED Arshad has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr. P.C.) for bail in case FIR No. 280 dated 26.05.2012 registered under Sections 376, 366 -A, 363 and 506 IPC at Police Station Nuh, District Mewat. According to prosecution version, the petitioner, who was employee of the complainant, kidnapped the complainant's minor daughter aged less than 17 years. After recovery of the prosecutrix, she stated during investigation that the petitioner also committed rape on her. Consequently offence under Section 376 IPC was also added.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contended that in statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C., the prosecutrix did not state about commission of rape with her by the petitioner. However, this contention also cannot be accepted at this stage because statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 30.05.2012 whereas prior to it, the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. recorded on 29.05.2012 had already stated that the petitioner accused had committed rape on her.