JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) : - Accused Jasbir Singh has filed this petition for regular bail in case FIR No.176 dated 01.10.2011 under Sections 452, 353, 376 and 511 IPC, registered at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 3. According to prosecution version, the petitioner went into the house of the prosecutrix and started conversing with her in obscene language but she did not respond. The petitioner then caught the prosecutrix and put her on the cot and inspite of resistance by her, the petitioner broke the string of her salwar and tried to commit rape on her. Her alarm attracted neighbours and the petitioner fled away after threatening the prosecutrix. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner’s father had lodged FIR No.142 dated 23.08.2011 in the same Police Station against Gurdip Singh and Hardip Singh and in that FIR, respondent No.2 Prem Singh SHO of the Police Station was pressurizing the petitioner and his father to effect compromise but they were resisting the same and therefore, respondent No.2 got annoyed and registered FIR No.175 dated 01.10.2011 against the petitioner regarding obstruction in the performance of official duty by respondent No.2 and also registered the instant FIR No.176 dated 01.10.2011 at the instance of prosecutrix who was accompanying Gurdip Singh etc. at the time of conversation. 5. Pursuant to order of preceding date, Prem Singh Inspector is present in person. His affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. 6. Learned State counsel contended that instant FIR is independent of FIR No.175, which was registered because the petitioner had caught hold of collar of uniform of respondent No.2 in the Police Station. It was also submitted that prosecutrix had made application at 10.30am before the occurrence relating to FIR No.175, although instant FIR was registered at 5.50pm after the said occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if the petitioner had attempted to commit rape with prosecutrix, thereafter he would not have gone to the Police Station and would not have entered into controversy with respondent No.2 SHO. 7. The petitioner is in custody since 02.10.2011 i.e. for two months twenty days. Investigation has already been completed and charge has also been framed. Trial may take time. 7. The petitioner is in custody since 02.10.2011 i.e. for two months twenty days. Investigation has already been completed and charge has also been framed. Trial may take time. It may be added that except breaking of string of salwar of the prosecutrix, no other overtor covert act towards commission of rape has been attributed, except that the petitioner attempted to commit rape. 8. It is also a matter of admitted fact that respondent No.2 registered FIR No.175 against the petitioner allegedly because petitioner had caught hold of collar of uniform of respondent No.2. 9. Keeping in view all the circumstances, but without meaning to express any opinion on merit of the case, the bail petition is allowed. 10. Bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana. --------------