RUDRAKSH KANT THAKUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case was taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

(2.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.15 dated 18.02.2020, registered at Women Police Station Sector 51, Gurugram, District Gurugram, under Sections 376(2) (n), 323 and 506 IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present case, the prosecutrix, who is 29-year of age, is 4-year elder to the petitioner. The prosecutrix and the petitioner became friends in the year 2016. Their engagement was performed on 09.11.2019 and had been residing together for a period of two and half years since 2017. Due to ill-health of father of the prosecutrix, he also resided with them. This was a live-in-relationship between both of them and it was the prosecutrix, who gave her consent for physical intimacy. At the time of engagement, family members of the petitioner were also present, which is clear from the photographs attached with the petition. The engagement of the petitioner and the prosecutrix was a public affair and there was no intention of the petitioner not to marry her. It was later on when the petitioner came to know that she is involved with some other person and is a drug addict, he decided not to marry her. The learned counsel further contended that the complainant has given consent for physical relationship and the promise of the petitioner to marry her was not false. There was no breach of any consent by the petitioner for getting married. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment dated 04.10.2019 rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-42319-2019, titled as 'Manpreet Singh v. State of Punjab'.