IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Criminal Misc. No.M-18814 of 2018
Date of Decision: 23.01.2019
State of Haryana
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA
Present:- Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Arun Gupta, Advocate for
Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate
for the complainant.
HARI PAL VERMA, J.
Prayer in this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in
case FIR No.77 dated 17.11.2017 under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC
registered at Police Station Women, Panipat, District Panipat.
As per the prosecutrix, the petitioner is her neighbour and
belongs to the same caste. The petitioner-accused used to visit their house
frequently in late/early hours and there were good relations between both
the families. The petitioner was already married and had two children. In
June, 2004, the prosecutrix was about 13½ years of age and was a student
of 9th class. There were vacations in the school and her parents along with
her younger brother and sister had gone to her uncle Sulekh Kumar in
Village Gangoh, District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh for some domestic
1 of 4
10-02-2019 18:14:09 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M-18814 of 2018 -2-
work. She was alone in the house. On 27.06.2004, at about 10-00 P.M.,
after having food, when she was sleeping, the accused came to their house
and asked for water. When the prosecutrix went inside the kitchen to fetch
water for him, the petitioner locked the main door and caught her in the
kitchen. After closing her mouth forcibly, he took her inside the room and
committed rape upon her. When she tried to make noise, the petitioner
threatened that in case she tried to make a noise, he would kill her and also
her brother and sisters. Under this fear, she did not make a noise.
Thereafter, as and when she was alone at home, the accused finding an
opportunity, used to rape her. He had threatened her not to tell about it to
anybody. This continued till December, 2013, when the prosecutrix told
him that she would disclose this fact to her parents. The petitioner told her
that he will marry the prosecutrix, for which he has already filed a divorce
petition against his wife. In January, 2014, the petitioner forcibly took the
prosecutrix to Gohana Road, Sanjay Colony, Stree No.1 in the house of
Pawan Rana, where he used to develop physical relations daily. On
18.01.2014, the accused brought her at Sanjay Chowk, Panipat, where he
prepared certain papers and got her signatures so as to give an impression
that Court marriage has been solemnised. On 23.09.2014, the accused
shifted her to Babail Road, Ram Nagar in the house of Rohtash and assured
her that he would solemnise marriage with her. Since the prosecutrix was
pregnant from the petitioner, on 07.12.2014, a male child was born to her.
In this manner, FIR in question was registered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid FIR. The petitioner
2 of 4
10-02-2019 18:14:10 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M-18814 of 2018 -3-
is already married, having two children from his wife. After registration of
the FIR, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164
CrPC, wherein she has admitted that the petitioner and the complainant
used to reside as husband and wife voluntarily and a male child was born
out of this relationship. The prosecutrix has refused to get her medico-legal
examination conducted, which falsifies the story put forward by the
prosecution. Challan has been presented and charge has not yet been
framed. Right from the year 2014 till 2017, the petitioner and the
prosecutrix were in a consensual relationship. The continuous consensual
physical relations could not be termed as rape. They are known to each
other for the last more 10 years. Consensual intercourse would not amount
On the other hand, learned State counsel has argued that the
petitioner has committed rape upon the prosecutrix against her consent and
therefore, he does not deserve to be admitted on bail. Petitioner has
committed rape upon the prosecutrix when she was hardly 13½ years of
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
On July 30, 2018, learned State counsel had apprised this
Court that statement of the complainant is yet to be recorded in the case.
Thereafter, an application under Section 319 CrPC was filed before the trial
Court, which was pending consideration on 16.11.2018. Pursuant to order
dated 11.01.2019, the complainant is present in Court.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he has committed
rape upon the complainant when she was about 13½ years of age. Despite
3 of 4
10-02-2019 18:14:10 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M-18814 of 2018 -4-
being married, he had developed physical relations with the complainant
and out of this relationship, a child was born. The petitioner was abusing
the prosecutrix physically under the garb of marrying her, despite the fact
that he was already married and was having children from his marriage.
The prosecutrix has a child of about 3 years and is without any shelter. The
allegations against the petitioner are quite serious. In case he is enlarged on
bail at this stage, there is a possibility that he may influence the witnesses,
as the prosecutrix has alleged that the petitioner used to commit rape while
Considering the financial condition of the prosecutrix, who is
to survive along with her minor son, this Court has proposed the petitioner
to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the prosecutrix ‘at this stage’ so
that the complainant can survive along with her minor child, but counsel
for the petitioner has not shown any inclination towards it.
Be that as it may, considering the fact that there are serious
allegations against the petitioner and he had started committing rape upon
the prosecutrix when she was hardly 13½ years of age and continued to
exploit her physically, while giving a false assurance that he will marry her
and resultantly, a child was also born out of this relationship, this Court
finds that the petitioner does not deserve to be admitted on bail.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
January 23, 2019 ( HARI PAL VERMA )
Whether speaking / reasoned? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
4 of 4
10-02-2019 18:14:10 :::