ROHIT SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of this application, the petitioner-Rohit Sharma seeks grant of bail in case FIR No.59 of 2015 dated 16.06.2015 registered with Police Station Bakshi Nagar, Jammu, under Sections 376/506/420 RPC against the petitioner.

(2.) It is stated in the application that the police of Police Station Bakshi Nagar has falsely implicated the petitioner in FIR No.59/2015 dated 16.06.2015 and after concluding the investigation the Final Report No.44/2015 dated 27.09.2015 was presented before the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu for adjudication. That the petitioner denied the charges and the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. The prosecution has led almost whole of the evidence, except two witnesses and out of the two witnesses one is Investigating Officer (IO). Mala W/o Kuldeep Sabharwal who is the mother of the alleged prosecutrix and Bindu Dasuja W/o Rajinder Dasuja who is the real aunt of the alleged prosecutrix, who are the material witnesses, while making statement before the trial court have stated that Maria Sabharwal, D/o Kuldeep Sabharwal who is the alleged prosecutrix is married to one Michael Jackson, resident of Udhampur and while recording the statement the proof of marriage of alleged prosecutrix and Michael Jackson has not been made part of the file as many photographs show that the marriage of the alleged prosecutrix and Michael Jackson has taken place. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/alleged accused has given a false promise of marriage to Maria alleged prosecutrix and committed social offence, but later on refused to solemnize marriage, as such, the petitioner/alleged accused has committed offence under Section 376 RPC. That it is a settled principle of law held by the Apex Court of India that when the alleged prosecutrix is already married and the case of the prosecution is that the alleged accused has given a false promise to solemnize marriage and refused to solemnize marriage, there is no any ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 376 RPC. The Apex Court has further held in number of cases that trial should not be just for the sake of trial but in the present case the alleged prosecutrix being already married and there being no ingredients to constitute the offence, the trial is just for the sake of trial. As such, when there are no any ingredients to constitute the offence against the petitioner, the petitioner is required to be admitted to bail.

(3.) That the alleged incident was shown to be on 15th of May, 2015 and the FIR was registered on 16th of June, 2015 after about more than one month of alleged incident. It is settled principle of law held by the Apex Court of India that where there is delay in lodging FIR particularly in an offence under Section 376 RPC, the circumstances prima facie lead to not commission of offence under Section 376 RPC. The Apex Court while deciding the bail application where there was a delay of only 10 days in lodging of FIR, has admitted the petitioner therein to bail and in the present case there is a delay in lodging of FIR of more than one month, so on the principle held by the Apex Court of India that when there is delay in lodging the FIR, the petitioner therein was admitted to bail and in the present case, there being the delay of more than one month, the petitioner is entitled for admitting to bail on the principle held by the Apex Court.