CRM-M-35480-2018 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-35480-2018
Date of decision:- 4.10.2018

Rajinder Kumar @ Ravi
…Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

Present: Mr.Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr.V.S. Virk, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms.Samina Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

Mr.P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the complainant.

****

H.S. MADAAN, J. (Oral)

This petition has been filed for the grant of regular bail to the

petitioner – Rajinder Kumar @ Ravi, an accused in FIR No.22 dated

10.2.2018, under Sections 328, 342, 376, 384 IPC, registered with Police

Station Kotwali, Patiala.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as per the prosecution

story are that FIR in this case was lodged by complainant (name withheld

to protect her identity in view of Section 228-A IPC and as per the

directions given by the Hon’ble Apex Court Court in case titled State of

1 of 6
07-10-2018 16:18:31 :::
CRM-M-35480-2018 -2-

Karnataka Vs. Puttaraja, 2004(1) RCR(Cri.) Supreme Court, 113 (SC) and

referred to as the prosecutrix) wife of Rohit Gupta, resident of Mohalla

Shamsher Singh Kitaba Wala Bazar, Patiala by submitting an application

to SSP, Patiala, wherein she stated that she is a bank employee; from her

wedlock with her husband Rohit Gupta, she gave birth to two children;

that accused Rajinder Kumar @ Ravi is acquainted with her being a

regular customer of the bank; one day she was alone at home; the

petitioner/accused came there holding a bag in his hand and he stated that

he was to go out of station, as such he had come to hand over the papers

to her for submitting the same in the bank. According to the complainant,

she asked him to come inside the house and when she turned back, the

accused put a handkerchief on the mouth of the prosecutrix and after

inhaling substance put on the same, she became unconscious; that when

the prosecutrix gained consciousness, she found herself naked in the

bedroom and it transpired that accused had committed rape upon her;

subsequently the accused showed her a video clipping prepared by him of

that incident and threatened the complainant that in case she raised alarm

or disclosed anything to her husband or other person, then he would

defame her by uploading the video on internet and would also kill her

husband and children, therefore, she kept quiet; subsequently, accused

started blackmailing her compelling her to develop physical relations,

accordingly she complied with his such wishes and went along with him

to various places and hotels, where the accused committed rape upon her

against her wishes, clicking her photographs with his mobile phone,

which are in his possession; that the accused also compelled her to bring

2 of 6
07-10-2018 16:18:32 :::
CRM-M-35480-2018 -3-

cash and gold on 2-3 occasions and she accordingly did so; that on some

occasion, the accused called her to a hotel, where under threat, he

celebrated the occasion by cutting a cake, clicked photographs of

complainant and prepared a video film; subsequently, the accused started

pressuring her to divorce her husband and then to perform marriage with

him; the complainant/prosecutrix was not agreeable, to that accused

threatened to upload the photos on social media so as to defame the

complainant, as such she started remaining under depression; on one

occasion just to know the intention of accused, the complainant called him

and asked him to perform marriage with her but the accused refused to do

so and rather threatened the complainant.

Thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to the police.

After registration of formal FIR, the investigation in the case started. The

accused was arrested in this case on 13.2.2018. After completion of

investigation, challan has been filed in the Court and the

petitioner/accused is facing the trial. He had moved an application for

regular bail in Court of Sessions at Patiala but was unsuccessful as the

same was dismissed vide order dated 1.8.2018 passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge (Exclusive Court for Heinous Crimes Against

Women), Patiala, as such, he has approached this Court for grant of the

similar relief.

Notice of the petition was given to the State and State counsel

has put in appearance. The complainant has also appeared through

counsel.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going

3 of 6
07-10-2018 16:18:32 :::
CRM-M-35480-2018 -4-

through the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

prosecutrix is a married woman of 40 years having children and she was

involved in an affair with the accused; that she is younger to him by 10

years; that when her husband come to know about the affair, she lodged

the FIR to save her skin and as a matter of fact whatever happened was

with consent of the complainant; that the accused had moved an

application to C.M. Punjab regarding his innocence, which was marked to

SSP, Patiala, who constituted Special Investigation Team, which

conducted an investigation in the matter and found the petitioner/accused

to be innocent vide report dated 28.5.2018, as such, the supplementary

challan under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was presented in the trial Court on

30.5.2018, which was wrongly not accepted by the trial Court. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to para No.5 of the reply

submitted by State of Punjab in that regard praying that the petitioner be

granted concession of regular bail.

Whereas, this request is being resisted by learned State

counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant contending that

keeping in view the seriousness of allegations, the prayer for grant of

regular bail be declined.

After hearing the rival contentions, I find that the

complainant is a married woman serving in a bank. The first incident

narrated by her took place about 2 ½ years prior to registration of the FIR.

However, silence and inaction of the complainant for such a long time

does put a question mark over the credibility of her version. According to

4 of 6
07-10-2018 16:18:32 :::
CRM-M-35480-2018 -5-

the complainant/prosecutrix, she had been going along with the accused to

various places. The accused has placed on record various photographs,

which reflect the complainant and accused together in a happy mood.

These photographs could not possibly be clicked, if the prosecutrix had

gone unwillingly with the accused. This rather points out that whatever

happened was with the consent of the complainant. The story narrated by

the complainant/prosecutrix in the FIR appears to be somewhat

unconvincing. After the investigating agency had filed the challan, an

Special Investigation Team constituted by SSP, Patiala had conducted

probe finding accused to be innocent and then supplementary challan was

filed in the Court and it is a different matter that the same was not

accepted by the trial Court. However, these facts can certainly be taken

into consideration. The trial is going on and its conclusion is likely to take

some time, therefore, it shall be in the fitness of things, if regular bail is

granted to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner be

admitted to bail during the pendency of the trial, subject to his furnishing

bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, subject to the following conditions:

(i) he shall appear in the Court on each and every date of

hearing;

(ii)he shall not give any threat or intimidation to the

prosecution witnesses; and

(iii)he shall not leave India without prior permission of the

Court and shall surrender his passport, if he has got

5 of 6
07-10-2018 16:18:32 :::
CRM-M-35480-2018 -6-

one, otherwise to furnish affidavit in that regard.

In addition to that the trial Court may impose any term and

condition found suitable to ensure that the petitioner does not abscond and

interfere in the trial.

In case the petitioner violates any term and condition on

which the bail has been granted to him, the prosecution would be entitled

to apply for cancellation of bail.

It is clarified here that nothing discussed above be taken as

any opinion on the merits of the case.

4.10.2018 (H.S. MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

6 of 6
07-10-2018 16:18:32 :::