Seopal Singh vs State Of Punjab

Hari Pal Verma, J

The matter has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to outbreak of COVID-19.

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.33 dated

29.04.2019 under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 IPC registered at Police Station Cheema, District Sangrur.

As per the FIR, husband of the prosecutrix had expired 4 years back in a road side accident. The petitioner had worked in the house of the prosecutrix

as a Mistri. After 15-16 days when the repair work of the house started, the petitioner visited the house of the prosecutrix in evening to collect money

from her in lieu of the work done by him. When the prosecutrix went inside the house, the petitioner followed her and told her that he is still a bachelor

and ready to marry her and started developing physical relations with her. He sweared that he will marry with her. In this manner, he trapped the

victim on false promises of performing marriage with her and committed rape upon her. He gave the false assurances of marriage to the prosecutrix

for about three years. On 06.04.2019 at 10.30 P.M., when elder son of the victim was on duty and the prosecutrix was alone in her house, the

accused-petitioner and co-accused Bikkar Singh came in her house and committed rape upon her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the co-accused Bikkar Singh has been found innocent during investigation and admitted on interim

bail by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2021 passed in CRM-M-1228-2020, though the prosecution has moved an application under Section 319

CrPC, wherein he has been summoned, as an additional accused. Thus, the allegations made by the prosecutrix are false. He has further argued that

the petitioner is about 32 years of age whereas the prosecutrix is an old lady of above 56 years of age, having 5 children and all of them are married.

The petitioner was arrested in the case on 28.06.2019, though he has been admitted on interim bail by this Court vide order dated 05.10.2020.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the custody of the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

This Court vide order dated 05.10.2020 had granted interim bail to the petitioner, noticing the fact that the petitioner was known to the prosecutrix for

the last 22 years. The petitioner had developed physical relations with prosecutrix on the pretext of performing marriage with her. The petitioner is

stated to be of 32 years of age, whereas the prosecutrix is 55 years of age, having 5 children and all of them are married. Considering the fact that

trial in the case is not likely to be concluded in near future due to Covid-19 pandemic, this Court deems it appropriate to release the petitioner on

regular bail.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 05.10.2020, granting interim bail to the petitioner, is hereby made absolute.

However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The

petitioner shall not take any mileage from this order, in any other case, if registered against him.