RANDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF UT CHANDIGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0021 dtd. 16/1/2019 under Sec. 376 IPC registered at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh.

(2.) The aforesaid FIR was registered at the behest of the prosecutrix to the effect that the petitioner had sent a friend request to her on Facebook which she accepted. Thereafter, the petitioner started coming to her workplace. After some time, he proposed her for marriage, which was accepted by the prosecutrix. Earlier at two different times, police had made enquiry from them. The petitioner hosted a party on her birthday in a hotel, saying that his friend has a hotel at Doaba Kajeri which is a safe place, as otherwise it is possible that the police may again disturb them. Believing him, the prosecutrix accompanied the petitioner to the hotel, where he offered cold drink to her. However, after having the cold drink, the prosecutrix felt unconscious and taking advantage of the situation, the petitioner established physical relations with her, to which she objected but the petitioner promised her to marry. On 20/12/2017, on the birthday of the petitioner, she refused to accompany him to the hotel, to which, he threatened that he will show their objectionable pictures to everybody and therefore, she accompanied him. In the month of May, she came to know that the talks of marriage of the petitioner were going on and the petitioner had stopped contacting her. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a message to the prosecutrix through some friend that no such talk about his marriage is in process. The petitioner asked the prosecutrix to meet him on 28/6/2018, on which date, he again established forcible physical relations with her. But instead of getting married with the prosecutrix, he solemnised marriage with some other girl.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 16/1/2019. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has established physical relations with the prosecutrix with a promise that he will solemnize marriage with her, but instead of marrying her, he has solemnised marriage with some other girl. The petitioner had never made any promise about marriage with prosecutrix.