Ram Lubhaya vs State of Punjab

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—This order shall dispose of the present petition filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. seeking concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 22 dated 20.02.2014, under Sections 420/506/376 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur.

While issuing notice of motion, the following order was passed by this Court on 01.05.2014:-

The present petition has been filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. seeking the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 22 dated 20.2.2014 registered under sections 420, 506, 376 I.P.C. at Police Station, Sadar Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that even as per version of the complainant namely Harpal Kaur, she was earlier married to one Satwinder Singh about 16/17 years back and out of such wedlock a son and a daughter were born. The allegations made by the complainant are that the present petitioner developed physical relations on the pretext of inducement of marriage. Counsel would place reliance upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 23.1.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2013 titled as Prashant Bharti Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court had clearly observed that an inducement for marriage would be understandable, if, the same is made to an unmarried person.

Counsel would contend that herein the complainant herself was stated to have been married and during the subsistence of her earlier marriage had entered into an extramarital affair with the petitioner and as such, the offence u/s 376 I.P.C. would not be made out.

Notice of motion, returnable for 26.5.2014.

In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and he shall remain bound by the conditions envisaged u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Learned State counsel, upon instructions from ASI Ranjit Singh, would apprise the Court that the petitioner has since joined the investigation.

Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate, appearing for the complainant would oppose the present petition by contending that even though complainant was earlier married to Satwinder Singh but on account of the inducement and promise of marriage held out by the present petitioner, she had broken the relationship with her husband and had entered into an extramarital affair with the petitioner and a daughter and a son were born out of such wedlock.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner would meet such submission, by referring to a ration card appended as Annexure P-2 alongwith the petition, issued by the Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, Gurdaspur on 20.08.2011 which shows Satwinder Singh as husband of Harpal Kaur i.e. complainant and female child as Shenaz Kaur, aged 7 months.

Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations against the petitioner are false and, in any case, the ingredients of offence u/s 376 IPC, are not made out.

Without making any observation on the merits of the case and in the light of the fact that the petitioner has joined investigation and also keeping in mind that the complainant inspite of having been married, had entered into an illicit relationship with the present petitioner, on her own, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, petition is allowed.

Order dated 01.05.2014 passed by this Court, is made absolute.

Disposed of.