High Court

"1. Shri Shiv Shankar Verma, Advocate filed 'Vakalatnama' on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record.

2. This court had passed the following order on 29.05.2024:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 31.03.2023 in Case Crime No.65 of 2023, under Sections 342, 366, 376 & 506 IPC, Police Station ? Jalalpur, District ?Ambedkar Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.7 of the bail application, which is a Marriage Certificate being issued from one Temple at Panchkula, Haryana dated 10.02.2023. Learned counsel has stated that after marrying with the prosecutrix, the present applicant started living with her and both were living as husband and wife but after his arrest on the basis of FIR, which is not only concocted but the same has been lodged under pressure and ill advice of her family members, thus, she has been compelled to record her statements under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. against the present applicant. He has further submitted that as soon as the applicant comes out from jail, he shall start living with the prosecutrix as she is his wife.

4. So as to ascertain the aforesaid fact, appearance of the prosecutrix would be required, therefore, learned AGA is directed to instruct the Station House Officer, Police Station - Jalalpur, District ?Ambedkar Nagar to ensure the presence of the prosecutrix before this Court on the next date.

5. List this case on 14.06.2024 within top ten cases.

6. On that date, Station House Officer, Police Station - Jalalpur, District ? Ambedkar Nagar shall ensure the presence of the prosecutrix before this Court.

7. Learned AGA shall intimate this order to the Station House Officer, Police Station - Jalalpur, District ?Ambedkar Nagar telephonically/ WhatsApp/ e-mail/ any other convenient mode for its strict compliance within two working days. "

3. In deference to the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by this court, the prosecutrix appeared in person, who has been produced by Shri Rajeshwar Verma, Sub Inspector and Lady Constable Ms.Shilpi Gautam posted at Police Station-Jalalpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar. The prosecutrix stated before this court in presence of learned counsel for the parties that she had been got married forcibly by the applicant-Amit Sahani. She also does not know the place where the marriage was solemnized forcibly because she was taken by the applicant threatening her. She also supported the version of F.I.R.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix had married with the applicant with her free will, but she is giving false statement before this court. The prosecutrix alongwith the applicant had also filed a criminal petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court after marriage for protection and the High Court had granted protection to the applicant. He further submits that the prosecutrix had also written a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkarnagar that she has married according to the Guidelines of the Government of India and no action may be taken against her in-laws. Thus the submission is that the allegations against the applicant are false and concocted, therefore the applicant is entitled for bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and submits that in view of the statement of the prosecutrix it is apparent that the applicant had got the marriage solemnized forcefully. It has further been submitted that the version of F.I.R. is supported by statement of complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has also stated that the marriage was got solemnized by threatening on gun point and therefore it is apparent that there was no consent for the marriage by the prosecutrix, even if the marriage has been solemnized. So far as the alleged letter written by the complainant is concerned, it has been submitted that it also does not indicate consent of prosecutrix for marriage. Thus the submission is that the applicant is not entitled for bail and the applicant is liable to be dismissed.

7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the material placed on record.

8. The allegations against the applicant in the First Information Report lodged by the prosecutrix herself are serious in nature. She has also supported the same in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She has also categorically supported the same before this court.

9. So far as the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is concerned, a copy of which has been placed on record at page no.59 of the application, indicates that no protection has been granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the petition filed by the applicant alongwith the prosecutrix bearing CRPW-1139 of 2023, rather the petition was got disposed of with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala to consider and decide the representation dated 31.01.2023 alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner no.1 seeking protection of her life and liberty. Whiling disposing of the petition by means of order dated 06.02.2023 without expressing any opinion on the merit of the matter and in particular the legality of the alleged relationship, it has been made clear by the High Court that this order shall not be taken to validate the alleged relationship between the petitioners to protect them from legal action for violation, if any, committed by them. Thus the contention of learned counsel for the applicant is misconceived and not tenable.

10. So for as the letter alleged to have been written by the prosecutrix is concerned, a copy of which has been placed on record alongwith supplementary affidavit as annexure no.SA-2, indicates that the same is without date and any signature of the prosecutrix. Her signature is on the left side of the address, from which it appears that it may have been written on a previously signed blank paper. It has been written in the said letter that the applicant has married according to the guidelines of the Government of India with her consent and she is writing this letter to tell her parents according to the said guidelines that her in-laws may not be harassed accordingly the guidelines of the government. On a query being put to learned counsel for the applicant he failed to indicate any such guidelines. Even otherwise it is apparent that the applicant has not written even in this letter that she has married with her sweet will. This letter is not addressed to anybody.

11.In view of above and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case this court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled for bail.

12. The application is, accordingly, dismissed." Learned counsel for the applicant reiterated his arguments recorded in the aforesaid bail application, which have already been considered. He further submits that since the applicant is in jail for the last more than two years, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail as only seven witnesses have been examined in the trial and there are twenty three witnesses, out of which two are hostile. On query, learned counsel for the applicant admits that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her evidence before the trial court also. On asking, he declines to file the evidence of the witnesses recorded in the trial court. As per report of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -I, Ambedkar Nagar dated 01.05.2025, seven witnesses were examined and the cross- examination of P.W.-7 is going on for which date was fixed for 13.05.2025. It is further been stated that efforts are being made for expeditious disposal of case. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant. He submits that admittedly, the victim has supported the prosecution case even in the trial and no new ground could be pointed out, on which the applicant may be entitled for bail. He further submits that there are serious allegations against the accused-applicant and the same has been supported by the victim not only in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but before the trial court also in her evidence during trial. Therefore, the application is misconceived and liable to be rejected. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record and that the victim has supported the prosecution case in the evidence before the trial court also and no new ground could be pointed out, on which the applicant may be entitled for bail, the application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. The application of the applicant- Amit Sahani is accordingly dismissed. However, as informed by the trial court, it shall proceed and decide the trial expeditiously in accordance with law without granting unnecessarily adjournment to either of the parties. . Order Date :- 15.5.2025 dk/ (Rajnish Kumar,J.)

"1. Shri Shiv Shankar Verma, Advocate filed 'Vakalatnama' on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record.

2. This court had passed the following order on 29.05.2024:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 31.03.2023 in Case Crime No.65 of 2023, under Sections 342, 366, 376 & 506 IPC, Police Station ? Jalalpur, District ?Ambedkar Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.7 of the bail application, which is a Marriage Certificate being issued from one Temple at Panchkula, Haryana dated 10.02.2023. Learned counsel has stated that after marrying with the prosecutrix, the present applicant started living with her and both were living as husband and wife but after his arrest on the basis of FIR, which is not only concocted but the same has been lodged under pressure and ill advice of her family members, thus, she has been compelled to record her statements under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. against the present applicant. He has further submitted that as soon as the applicant comes out from jail, he shall start living with the prosecutrix as she is his wife.

4. So as to ascertain the aforesaid fact, appearance of the prosecutrix would be required, therefore, learned AGA is directed to instruct the Station House Officer, Police Station - Jalalpur, District ?Ambedkar Nagar to ensure the presence of the prosecutrix before this Court on the next date.

5. List this case on 14.06.2024 within top ten cases.

6. On that date, Station House Officer, Police Station - Jalalpur, District ? Ambedkar Nagar shall ensure the presence of the prosecutrix before this Court.

7. Learned AGA shall intimate this order to the Station House Officer, Police Station - Jalalpur, District ?Ambedkar Nagar telephonically/ WhatsApp/ e-mail/ any other convenient mode for its strict compliance within two working days. "

3. In deference to the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by this court, the prosecutrix appeared in person, who has been produced by Shri Rajeshwar Verma, Sub Inspector and Lady Constable Ms.Shilpi Gautam posted at Police Station-Jalalpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar. The prosecutrix stated before this court in presence of learned counsel for the parties that she had been got married forcibly by the applicant-Amit Sahani. She also does not know the place where the marriage was solemnized forcibly because she was taken by the applicant threatening her. She also supported the version of F.I.R.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix had married with the applicant with her free will, but she is giving false statement before this court. The prosecutrix alongwith the applicant had also filed a criminal petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court after marriage for protection and the High Court had granted protection to the applicant. He further submits that the prosecutrix had also written a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkarnagar that she has married according to the Guidelines of the Government of India and no action may be taken against her in-laws. Thus the submission is that the allegations against the applicant are false and concocted, therefore the applicant is entitled for bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and submits that in view of the statement of the prosecutrix it is apparent that the applicant had got the marriage solemnized forcefully. It has further been submitted that the version of F.I.R. is supported by statement of complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has also stated that the marriage was got solemnized by threatening on gun point and therefore it is apparent that there was no consent for the marriage by the prosecutrix, even if the marriage has been solemnized. So far as the alleged letter written by the complainant is concerned, it has been submitted that it also does not indicate consent of prosecutrix for marriage. Thus the submission is that the applicant is not entitled for bail and the applicant is liable to be dismissed.

7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the material placed on record.

8. The allegations against the applicant in the First Information Report lodged by the prosecutrix herself are serious in nature. She has also supported the same in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She has also categorically supported the same before this court.

9. So far as the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is concerned, a copy of which has been placed on record at page no.59 of the application, indicates that no protection has been granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the petition filed by the applicant alongwith the prosecutrix bearing CRPW-1139 of 2023, rather the petition was got disposed of with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala to consider and decide the representation dated 31.01.2023 alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner no.1 seeking protection of her life and liberty. Whiling disposing of the petition by means of order dated 06.02.2023 without expressing any opinion on the merit of the matter and in particular the legality of the alleged relationship, it has been made clear by the High Court that this order shall not be taken to validate the alleged relationship between the petitioners to protect them from legal action for violation, if any, committed by them. Thus the contention of learned counsel for the applicant is misconceived and not tenable.

10. So for as the letter alleged to have been written by the prosecutrix is concerned, a copy of which has been placed on record alongwith supplementary affidavit as annexure no.SA-2, indicates that the same is without date and any signature of the prosecutrix. Her signature is on the left side of the address, from which it appears that it may have been written on a previously signed blank paper. It has been written in the said letter that the applicant has married according to the guidelines of the Government of India with her consent and she is writing this letter to tell her parents according to the said guidelines that her in-laws may not be harassed accordingly the guidelines of the government. On a query being put to learned counsel for the applicant he failed to indicate any such guidelines. Even otherwise it is apparent that the applicant has not written even in this letter that she has married with her sweet will. This letter is not addressed to anybody.

11.In view of above and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case this court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled for bail.

12. The application is, accordingly, dismissed." Learned counsel for the applicant reiterated his arguments recorded in the aforesaid bail application, which have already been considered. He further submits that since the applicant is in jail for the last more than two years, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail as only seven witnesses have been examined in the trial and there are twenty three witnesses, out of which two are hostile. On query, learned counsel for the applicant admits that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her evidence before the trial court also. On asking, he declines to file the evidence of the witnesses recorded in the trial court. As per report of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -I, Ambedkar Nagar dated 01.05.2025, seven witnesses were examined and the cross- examination of P.W.-7 is going on for which date was fixed for 13.05.2025. It is further been stated that efforts are being made for expeditious disposal of case. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant. He submits that admittedly, the victim has supported the prosecution case even in the trial and no new ground could be pointed out, on which the applicant may be entitled for bail. He further submits that there are serious allegations against the accused-applicant and the same has been supported by the victim not only in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but before the trial court also in her evidence during trial. Therefore, the application is misconceived and liable to be rejected. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record and that the victim has supported the prosecution case in the evidence before the trial court also and no new ground could be pointed out, on which the applicant may be entitled for bail, the application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. The application of the applicant- Amit Sahani is accordingly dismissed. However, as informed by the trial court, it shall proceed and decide the trial expeditiously in accordance with law without granting unnecessarily adjournment to either of the parties. . Order Date :- 15.5.2025 dk/ (Rajnish Kumar,J.)