BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A case has been registered against the petitioner with respect to offences punishable under Sections 376, 420 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail.

(2.) THE sum and substance the assertion of the petitioner are that the petitioner is working in State Bank of Patiala. Complainant in the year 1990 was working as a clerk in All Bank Employees Urban Salary Earners Thrift and Credit Society Ltd, Chandigarh. The petitioner used to come to the office of the complainant. They developed intimacy. The petitioner asked the complainant to marry him stating that he is unmarried. The complainant asked the petitioner that she may be allowed to consult her parents. The petitioner insisted that he cannot live without her and at his insistence marriage was solemnized in a simple ceremony at Gurdwara. After marriage, they lived for sometimes in house No. 2566 Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. Therefore they shifted to Section 42-B, Chandigarh.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner highlighted the facts so as to urge that he was never married to the complainant and further that the complainant had come to the house of the petitioner. She was aware of the fact that the petitioner is already married. In view of this, the learned counsel urged that in fact the petitioner has been falsely implicated.