DHIRENDRA NATH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present bail application has been filed under Sec. 439 Code Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.223/2012, Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 376 and 420 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor (sic) and learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

(3.) Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in this case, the complainant has lodged the FIR after delay of 10 years. He submits that it is an admitted case of prosecution that the prosecutrix and the petitioner were having intimacy since the year 2002. He submits that as per the admitted story set out in the complaint, the complainant and the petitioner contracted marriage with each other by way of applying vermilion on the forehead of the prosecutrix and thereafter, both of them lived together for almost six years on different places including Delhi, Bangkok and Jaipur. He submits that during the period of six years, the complainant did not raise any grievance regarding the accused having cheated her and the accused not having solemnized marriage with her. He submits that while the relationship with the petitioner subsisted, the prosecutrix contracted other relationship with one Sanjeev Khanna resident of Hisar and thereafter, broke up the relationship with him. He further submits that the parents of prosecutrix were well aware of the relationship between petitioner and the complainant and at no point of time, any doubt was expressed relating to the marriage between the petitioner and the prosecutrix not having been solemnized. He, therefore, submits that ex facie the case of rape as has been set up now by the prosecutrix after nearly 10 years from the date the relationship was initiated cannot be said to be justified by any stretch of imagination whatsoever. He submits that accused has been arrested and he is in judicial custody since 03.09.2012. Learned counsel for the petitions as placed on record documents showing that the prosecutrix has in her own writing mentioned that she had married with Sanjeev Khanna. He has also placed on record the SMS sent by the prosecutrix to the brother of the petitioner on 16.03.2012 wherein she has clearly mentioned that she had married the petitioner. He therefore prays that the petitioner deserves to be granted bail in this case.