SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kuljinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 26 August, 2019


CRM-M-33221-2019 (OM)
Date of Decision:-26.8.2019

Kuljinder Singh … Petitioner


State of Punjab … Respondent


Present:- Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Lakhwinder S.Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant.



1. The petitioner Kuljinder Singh has approached this Court seeking grant of

anticipatory bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No.115 dated

11.7.2019 under Section 376 IPC at Police Station Sadar Sangrur, District


2. The FIR was registered at the instance of Jaspreet Kaur wherein she alleged

that she is aged 22 years and that when she was in school, Kuljinder Singh

(accused) used to follow her and pass filthy comments. It is alleged that

Kuljinder Singh’s aunt used to reside in village Nagra and Kuljinder Singh

also started residing with his aunt and started roaming around complainant’s

house. It is alleged that Kuljinder Singh’s aunt called the complainant to her

house and handed her over to Kuljinder Singh where she was raped for the

first time. It is alleged that Kuljinder Singh’s aunt held out a representation

1 of 4
01-09-2019 19:15:28 :::
2 CRM-M-33221-2019 (OM)

that she would get her married to Kuljinder Singh as Kuljinder Singh is

having a big share in property. The complainant, being taken in by

the said representation, continued meeting Kuljinder Singh. However,

complainant’s marriage was fixed with one Sukhjit Ram of Patiala and upon

which Kuljinder Singh started giving threats of interrupting the marriage.

The complainant was married to Sukhjit Ram but later she left her

matrimonial home and came back to her parental home as divorce

proceedings were also initiated. It is alleged that Kuljinder Singh alongwith

1-2 other persons used to take her to his house where his brother

Lakhwinder Singh also committed obscene acts with her but she kept mum

due to fear. It is alleged that in the year 2015, she gave an amount of

` 80,000/- to Kuljinder Singh on his demand to purchase a motorcycle. It is

further stated therein that the complainant used to go to the house of

Kuljinder Singh with the permission of his mother namely Paramjit Kaur

who assured her that she would solemnize her marriage with Kuljinder

Singh and consequently Kuljinder Singh kept on establishing physical

relations with her with her consent. It is alleged that later Kuljinder Singh,

his friends Harpreet Singh Happy, Jarnail Singh, Yadwinder Singh, Barinder

Singh and others started issuing threats to kill her brother and she was also

threatened to establish physical relations with Kuljinder Singh and his

friends. It is alleged that the accused threatened to upload her naked

photographs on internet. It is alleged that on one day, she was beaten up and

was gang raped and accused also clicked her naked photographs.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been

implicated in the present case and that even as per the FIR, it is apparent that

2 of 4
01-09-2019 19:15:28 :::
3 CRM-M-33221-2019 (OM)

the complainant was having physical relations with the petitioner out of her

own free will and consent before marriage and even after her marriage to

Sukhjit Ram when she left her matrimonial home. It has been submitted

that the present FIR has been lodged in order to pressurize the petitioner to

marry her as the complainant has been thrown out of her matrimonial home

also. The learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant is in

the habit of levelling false allegations and infact in the complaint filed by

her against her husband Sukhjit Ram and others under Section 365, Section323 and

Section506 IPC (Annexure P-6), she went to the extent of levelling allegations

against her father-in-law Puran Ram to the effect that he compelled her to

develop illicit relations with him and one day made an attempt to commit

rape and held her in his arms but she managed to save herself.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the print out of

the WhatsApp conversation between the petitioner and the complainant

annexed with the petition as Annexure P-7 which shows that the

complainant has been regularly in touch with the petitioner not only before

her marriage to Sukhjit Ram but even after the marriage.

5. Opposing the petition, the learned State Counsel has submitted that since

specific and categoric allegations are levelled against the petitioner, no case

for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

6. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

Apparently, it is a case where the petitioner established physical relations

with the complainant with her consent several years before her marriage to

Sukhjit Ram. It is, however, borne out that the marriage of the complainant

did not work and she left her matrimonial home and came back to her

3 of 4
01-09-2019 19:15:28 :::
4 CRM-M-33221-2019 (OM)

parental village and again resumed physical relations with the petitioner.

The WhatsApp conversation shows that the complainant was regularly in

touch with the petitioner even after her marriage and after having left her

matrimonial home. In these circumstances, it will certainly be debatable as

to whether the petitioner had kept the complainant under any kind of fear or

threat so as to establish physical relations and has forced her to develop

physical relations with somebody else.

7. Since the petitioner is already stated to have joined investigation and the

facts of the case do not warrant any custodial interrogation, the petition, as

such, is accepted and the petitioner in the event of arrest be released on bail

subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction

of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join

investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the

Arresting/Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as

provided under Section 438 (2) SectionCr.P.C. It is, however, clarified that none of

the observations made above shall be construed to be an expression on

merits of the main case.

8. The petition stands accepted accordingly.

26.8.2019 (Gurvinder Singh Gill)
kamal Judge

Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No

Whether Reportable Yes / No

4 of 4
01-09-2019 19:15:28 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation