SHITIJ GAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Crimial P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 12 dated 31.1.2016 registered under Sections 376/506 Penal Code at Women Police Station, District Gurgaon.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case, whereas, he was not involved. The petitioner is unmarried, whereas, the complainant is a divorcee and is having a 12 years old daughter as well. Both the parties were known to each other for the last few months. The complainant introduced herself as an unmarried girl to the petitioner with an ulterior motive and there was involvement of her family members also. Even in whatsapp messages, the complainant has shown herself to be an unmarried girl and the factum of her earlier marriage was not told to the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that both the parties were having liking for each other but no promise of marriage was ever made. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of Honourable the Apex Court in the case of K.P. Thimmappa Gowda v. State of Karnataka 2011(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 589 : 2011 (14) SCC 475, Tilak Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2016 (1) RCR (Criminal) 802, of this Court in Ram Lubhaya Vs. State of Punjab passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-14699 of 2014 on 26.5.2014, Neeraj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-131 of 2016 on 10.3.2016, of Delhi High Court in Vikul Bakshi Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) 2016 (1) JCC 54, Rohit Chauhan v. State NCT of Delhi 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 1030, Nirmal Vaid Vs. State NCT of Delhi 2014 (12) RCR (Criminal) 2406 and of Bombay High Court in Mahesh Balkrishna Dandane Vs. State of Maharashtra 2014 (4) Crimes 37, in support of his contentions.

(3.) Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate appears on behalf of the complainant and submits that the petitioner was well aware about the marriage of the complainant and her daughter from the earlier marriage. Not only promise for marriage was made but under the pretext of marriage, physical relations were also made with the complainant. The petitioner subsequently backed out from the marriage and offence under Sec. 376 IPC is made out as has been held by Honourable the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Naushad, 2014(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 173 : 2013 (16) SCC 651.