MANISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner pending trial in case FIR No.50 dated 10.08.2018, under Sections 201, 313, 366, 376, 506 and 509 IPC, registered at Police Station Panchkula, District Panchkula.

(2.) The allegations as contained in the aforesaid FIR are that on the basis of complaint by the prosecutrix the present FIR was registered. In the complaint, the prosecutrix stated that she is 23 years old and making the complaint against the petitioner, namely, Manish Kumar s/o Raj Kumar with regard to making physical relations by promising to marry, forcibly getting conduct abortion, lowering reputation by claiming to have spent lacs of rupees in the name of providing educational course, lowering reputation by raising questions on character, getting implicate parents and relatives etc. in a false police case, threatening to commit suicide and threatening to kill her and her family members, making physical relations by promising to marry. It is alleged that the petitioner played drama with her of being harassed by his wife and allured her in the sweet talks and made false promise with her for giving divorce to his wife soon and made physical relations with her many times. Giving details in the contents of FIR, the prosecutrix further alleged that as far as she remember the date of hotel at Kala Amb, it was 15th February, 2017 where entry was also made while taking room and after making physical relations by the petitioner she got pregnant twice but the petitioner refused to marry her and lingered on the matter in the name of providing few days. During this period, he also administered medicine for abortion fradulently and her abortion took place. Further the petitioner allegedly started demanding money from her on the pretext that he had given money to her father for her admission and used to make physical relations forcibly. During that period allegedly the petitioner also obtained many signatures on many blank papers and on the basis of the same he now tells that their marriage had taken place in the Court on the basis of those papers whereas he has not performed any marriage with her. The petitioner is also claiming an amount of 60-70 lac and threatening to implicate her entire family in a false case besides threatening to commit suicide. Furthermore allegedly Aadhar Card and other necessary documents are in his custody and he has lowered her reputation to a great extent in the village and in the vicinity.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of false statement made by the prosecutrix. He has submitted that in fact vide Annexure P-2 the petitioner as well as his wife, namely, Seema Rani had entered into an agreement/divorce document, dated 26.6.2015 and that in view of the said divorce document the marriage between the petitioner and his wife was dissolved in the year 2015 by way of the aforesaid documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to Annexure P-3 which is dated 23.2.2016 which is purported to be a marriage certificate between the petitioner and the prosecutrix performed at Prachin Shiv Mandir, Nada Sahib road, Panchkula. The argument raised by learned counel for thepetitioner is that the physical relations between the petitioner and the prosecutrix were voluntary and with consent and therefore the offence of rape is not made out against the petitioner. He has further submitted that the prosecutrix was well aware of the earlier marriage of the petitioner and still she had developed physical relatilons with him and therefore, it cannot be termed as an offence under Section 376 IPC because it was a result of consent given by her. He has further submitted that it is only because the prosecutrix had taken a 'U' turn and in order to blackmail the petitioner, she has got the present FIR lodged against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 02.10.2018 and after framing of the charges, three witnesses have already been examined out of 23 cited witnesses and that there is no case made out against the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner may be considered for grant of regular bail.