Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no. 87 dated 31.05.2013, under Sections 363/366A/419/120B IPC, registered at police station Urban Estate, Patiala. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala dismissing bail application filed by the petitioner.

Brief allegations are that, prosecutrix was minor as her date of birth is 28.10.1995 as per Senior Secondary School Certificate. She was kidnapped by son of petitioner, who was major and is co-accused in this case and he contracted marriage with her. It came during investigation that petitioner was present at the time of marriage of daughter of complainant and son of petitioner. Documents were also filled at the time of marriage in which prosecutrix was shown to be major. The documents were also signed by the petitioner. Though, initially, FIR was registered for offences under Sections 363/366A IPC and name of petitioner was not mentioned and however, it came during investigation that petitioner was also in conspiracy with his son in preparing false documents and getting her married with his son and hence, offences under Sections 419 and 120B IPC were also added.

It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner-accused that his name has not been mentioned in the FIR and that prosecutrix had gone with son of petitioner with her free consent and marriage was also performed by her with her free consent and that she had also filed a petition for protection. It is also contended that he agreed to the marriage of his son with the prosecutrix on the asking of prosecutrix herself and that he had only signed documents as a witness at the time of marriage.

Be that as it may, there are serious allegations against petitioner-accused as he allegedly conspired with his son in kidnapping a minor girl and performing her marriage with his son.

Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Darshan Singh is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit.