DILBHAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed the present petition for bail under Sections 376/506/109/341 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the prosecutrix Neeraj was working as a Cashier/Assistant Accountant with M/s Oriental Automobiles Limited, Mansa Road, Bathinda which is owned by the petitioner. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the prosecutrix has been working for the last six years with the aforesaid Company. The prosecutrix has alleged that the petitioner by threatening her with dire consequences had taken her to various places like Delhi, Chandigarh etc. and committed sexual intercourse at pistol point.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that for more than six years the petitioner never complained of any sexual harassment. He has further contended that the affidavits of persons residing in the locality of the prosecutix show that the prosecutrix was a woman of loose character. Various persons were visiting her. He has further contended that the photographs which are alleged to have been taken by the petitioner show that the petitioner and the prosecutrix had a harmonious relationship and, thus, he contends that no rape was ever committed by the petitioner.