RAHUL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 235 dated 23.9.2015 registered under Ss. 363, 366, 376 IPC at Police Station Farrukhnagar, District Gurgaon.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to party faction in the village, whereas, he has nothing to do with the allegations. The complainant and petitioner belong to same village and caste and she wanted to marry with the petitioner but being in relation, the marriage could not be solemnized. Learned counsel further contends that the complainant is a married lady and belongs to Scheduled Caste. She is in the habit of lodging false complaints of rape so as to compromise later on by extracting money. Earlier also she lodged a false FIR No. 182 dated 25.6.2014 under Ss. 376, 313 IPC and Sec. 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Act at Police Station Rajendera Park against one Ram Bhul @ Sonu, which was compromised later on. Similarly another complaint of outraging her modesty was also lodged against one Mahender to SHO Police Station Rajendera Park, Gurgaon. Learned counsel also contends that prior to lodging of the present FIR, the complainant had even moved an application before SHO, Mahila Police Station, Rewari, wherein, no allegation of rape was levelled. The matter was investigated by the police by calling relatives of both the parties to Mahila Police Station but nothing incriminating was found against the petitioner. It is also the submission of learned counsel that the present FIR is an afterthought and has been registered just to blackmail the petitioner. Moreover, there was delay of 9/10 months in lodging of the FIR, which shows that it is a case of false implication. It is also clear from the allegations levelled in the FIR that complainant had herself left her house with petitioner and lived/travelled at different places and thereafter the complaint was made. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and he is ready to join the investigation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the victim remained with the petitioner as an assurance to marry with her was given but the rape was committed upon her. Earlier the victim was married at the age of 17 without her consent but she did not cohabit with her earlier husband as she never went to her in -laws house.