HIMANK PARIKH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C., is for grant of bail to petitioner, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 328, 376, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 506, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 182, dated 15.06.2015, registered at Police Station, Sectors-55/56, Gurgaon.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the whole case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, then also the gravamen of the offences for which the petitioner has been booked are not attracted qua him; the petitioner and the prosecutrix (name concealed), aged about 31 years, met on Facebook on 27.05.2014. It was revealed to the petitioner that the prosecutrix was a married woman having 10-year-old daughter and was not maintaining good relations with her husband; the petitioner, who is also aged about 31 years was a married male and having 3-year-old son, he too was not maintaining good relations with his wife; the prosecutrix herself went to Jaipur from Gurgaon and checked into a hotel under her own handwriting; the letters written by the prosecutrix which have been annexed with the present petition would clearly spell out that she had developed relationship with the petitioner with her free will and consent; the short messages conversation, the hard copy of which have been attached with the present petition, would further fortify the stand of the petitioner that the prosecutrix had fallen in love with the petitioner with her free will and consent. It has also been brought to the notice while referring to the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, when she appeared as PW-1 before learned trial Court that the photocopy of the letters appended with this petition were under her handwriting; she also admitted the conversation by way of short messages with the petitioner; and that a case of consent has been given the colour of a rape case under the greed. He has further pointed out that it was not possible to have deceitful sex with a woman, aged 31 years and working as a teacher, particularly when she was married and having a daughter of about 10 years.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the premise that in the month of June, 2015, the petitioner had extended threats to the prosecutrix and had deceitfully committed rape upon her. He further submits that even the parents of the prosecutrix were extended threat by the petitioner.