SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in a case registered vide FIR No. 330 dated 25.05.2011, under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station City Rohtak, District Rohtak.

(2.) THE allegation in the FIR is that the complainant had been sexually exploited by the Petitioner on the pretext of marriage.

(3.) IN this regard, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the fact of the marriage of the Petitioner was very much within the knowledge of the complainant because it is mentioned in the FIR itself that on 24.04.2011, the Petitioner's mother -in -law Sunita, his father Raj Kumar and his mother Jai Devi went to the village of the complainant and threatened her family and insulted her. She had disclosed this episode to the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak on which the Petitioner's mother -in -law, his father, he himself and his wife even went to the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak. It is submitted that if the complainant herself stated in her complaint that the Petitioner's mother -in -law Sunita had visited her house and insulted her on 24.04.2011, then it means she had the knowledge of the marriage of the Petitioner with Annu who was also before the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak on 25.04.2011, then why did she allow the Petitioner on 26.04.2011 to visit her and have sex with her. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as the complainant herself is a Constable and would not have allowed the Petitioner to have sex with her without her consent.