SANDIP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The present petition has been filed under Sec. 438 Crimial P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner-Sandip Kumar in case FIR No.114 dated 26.08.2014 registered under Sections 363, 366-A, 120-B of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur and Sec. 376 IPC, which was added later-on vide DDR No.36(A) on 16.04.2015.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case whereas he was not involved in the alleged offence. The petitioner was having love affair with Harpreet Kaur, who is sister of the complainant, for the last three years and he is also possessing certain photographs with sister of the complainant to prove the factum of love affair but it came in the knowledge of the family members of Harpreet Kaur and they threatened the petitioner and his family members. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is still ready to marry with the sister of the complainant and the offence under Sec. 376 Penal Code was added after a period of eight months. The family members of the petitioner also filed a complaint before Punjab State Human Rights Commission regarding false implication in the case and a cognizance was also taken thereupon, which is clear from the report (Annexure P-9).

(3.) Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner keeping in view the seriousness of the offence. Learned State counsel also submits that the sister of the complainant was minor at the time of commission of offence and after recording her statement under Sec. 164 Crimial P.C., offence under Sec. 376 Penal Code was added. The concession of anticipatory bail should not be given to the accused, who is involved in commission of such like heinous crimes.