RAHUL RAINA Vs. UNION TERRITORY J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant application for grant of bail has been moved by the petitioner/accused whereby he has sought bailin the case arising out of FIR No. 190/2020 for offence under Section 376 IPC registered with Police Station, Katra

(2.) Briefly stated the case of prosecution is that on 20.11.2020, the prosecutrix lodged a written complaint with the Police of Police Station, Katra alleging therein that the petitioner/accused, who is working with J&K Bank, gave a call to her on her mobile phone as shewas having a Savings Bank Account in the said Bank. According to the complaint, the petitioner remained in touch with the prosecutrix and had sexual relations with her at Nagrota as wellas at Kakrial, Katra. It was further averred in the complaint that the petitioner/accused had given assurance that he would marry her. The complaint goes on to allege that the prosecutrix accompanied the petitioner/accused to Golden Temple, Amritsar for four days where he naratted to her that he is unable to marry her and in case he marries her, he may get killed by some one. On the basis of this complaint, the Police registered FIR No. 190/2020 for offence under Section 376 IPC and arrested the petitioner. During the course of investigation of the case, the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C has been recorded and in her statement, she has supported the assertionsmade in the aforesaid complaint.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the allegations made in the FIR are vexatious and baseless and that no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out against him. It is contended that, even if, it is assumed that there was any physical relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, the same was consensual. The petitioner has denied having made any false promise of marriage to the prosecutrix. It is averred that the prosecutrix is a grownup girl, aged about 22 years and according to her, she has stayed with petitioner at Nagrota as well as at Amritsar for the last so many years, as such, it cannot be stated that she was induced by the petitioner to have physical relationship with him on the assurance of marriage. The petitioner has relied upon several judgments of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court in support of his assertion that no offence is made out against him on the basis of allegations made in the FIR.