Criminal Misc.No. M- 7864 of 2010 v. State of Punjab

Present:- Ms. Poonam Tara, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab. Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.10 dated 14.1.2010, under Sections 376 and 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Model Town, District Ludhiana. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Briefly stated, the prosecutrix was married with one Satinder Singh son of Inderjeet Singh in the year 1999 and out of wedlock one son namely Hamraj was also born. There was some dispute between her and previous husband. She started living separate from her husband in the year 2002. She came in contact with present petitioner-accused in the year 2005. Accused promised to marry the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix explained the petitioner that her divorce with her previous husband is yet to be finalized. Further allegations are that petitioner had taken prosecutrix to Amritsar and after few months he told him that her marriage has been Criminal Misc. No. M- 7864 of 2010 -2- dissolved and hence she would live with him. On 22.3.2006 petitioner had brought the prosecutrix alongwith her son to Ludhiana and started residing with her as her husband and developed physical relationship on promise of marrying. However, he had been lingering the matter on one pretext or other. They also started private business in the year 2006. In the year 2008, they started Kivi Education Pvt. Ltd. Later on, petitioner told her that her divorce was not finalized yet and that previously he wrongly told her that divorce was finalized. Hence, petitioner verified from the Court and then herself appeared before the Court and obtained divorce in the year

2009. After divorce as well the petitioner continued to have physical relationship with the prosecutrix on promise that he would marry her. However, he did not marry her and on her insistence, he gave beatings to her. The matter was reported to the police and a compromise was entered between the parties, which was signed by the petitioner admitting that he developed physical relationship with the complainant with the promise to marry her and he had undertaken to marry her. Both the parties also moved an application before the District Magistrate, Ludhiana for registration of marriage. Thereafter, accused had also taken the prosecutrix abroad and continued to have physical relationship with her. However, petitioner-accused performed marriage with another girl on

14.11.2009. It is alleged that consent of prosecutrix to develop physical relationship with her was obtained by the petitioner by fraud and hence the same is no consent in law. He refused to marry her despite assurance and thereafter performed marriage with another girl. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he never gave any assurance to the prosecutrix to marry her and that even she obtained divorce from her previous husband on 27.1.2009. It is further contended that prosecutrix was only business partner and that in Criminal Misc. No. M- 7864 of 2010 -3- fact entire family of the petitioner was falsely involved by the police and under the police pressure, he signed the alleged compromise admitting that he agreed to marry the prosecutrix. It is also contended that he moved an application for registration of marriage before the District Magistrate, Ludhiana as well under that pressure only.

It is further contended that moreover it is a matter to be decided on merits as to whether prosecutrix started living with petitioner on assurance of marriage or not. Further contends that petitioner has been continuing in custody since 19.1.2010 and that trial will take some time to conclude and hence he may be admitted to bail. Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that a big fraud has been committed upon the prosecutrix by the petitioner as he developed physical relationship with her on the promise that he would marry her and had been living with her for the last about 3 years and thereafter he performed marriage with some other girl. It is contended that the said fact is proved from the compromise deed as well as by the application moved by him under Special Marriage Act before the District Magistrate, Ludhiana. Hence, it is contended that the alleged consent of prosecutrix was obtained by the petitioner by fraud and hence, the same is no consent in law.

The petitioner has committed repeatedly rape upon the prosecutrix and hence the offence is serious in nature. It is further contended that challan has already been filed and trial can be expedited. I have considered all the facts of the case. The offence committed by the petitioner-accused is very serious in nature. He allegedly developed physical relationship with the prosecutrix on the promise that he will marry her and had been residing with her for about 3 years and had been taking her at different places and Criminal Misc. No. M- 7864 of 2010 -4- continued to have sexual intercourse with her on the promise that he would marry her and later on he married with some other girl. Hence, it cannot be said that the consent given by the prosecutrix is free consent. Rather the consent was obtained by the petitioner by playing fraud upon her by making false promise of marriage. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

Hence, the same is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as the petitioner has been continuing in custody since 19.1.2010 and efforts be made to conclude the trial within six months from the next date of hearing. April 22, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE