SANDEEP Vs. STATE OF U. T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application is allowed, as prayed for.

(2.) Present second petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in respect of FIR No. 159 dated 16.08.2020, under Section 376 IPC, registered at Police Station Industrial Area, U.T., Chandigarh.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the sexual act being attributed to the petitioner as rape was in fact a consensual act and the petitioner and the prosecutrix are known to each other and she had been coming to Chandigarh often to meet him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the above averment can be examined from the fact that the petitioner and the prosecutrix went to a particular hotel to get a room and on being denied the facility of a room in the said hotel, they went to another hotel, where the said act was performed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the prosecutrix has been changing her statement as initially in the FIR, it was alleged that intercourse took place in the said hotel, whereas while being medically examined, she had changed her statement and refused internal examination.