Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Jaskaran Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-7928 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 31-03-2021
Bail - Criminal Law - Regular bail granted to petitioner accused of Section 376 IPC based on consensual relationship and likelihood of trial delay
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case under Section 376 IPC, where the prosecutrix alleged a love affair with the petitioner, subsequent divorce from her husband, and physical relations with the petitioner. The petitioner refused to marry the prosecutrix.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted regular bail to the petitioner, noting the consensual relationship prior to 2017 and the continuous physical relationship between the parties. The court also acknowledged the likelihood of trial delay and absence of recovery to be made.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, the allegations of refusal to marry, and the seriousness of the allegations under Section 376 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the consensual nature of the relationship, the absence of recovery to be made, and the likelihood of trial delay, leading to the grant of regular bail to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petition for regular bail was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court/Duty Magistrate.
JUDGMENT :
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
1. This is a petition for grant of regular bail in case of FIR No. 200 dated 30.9.2020 under Section 376 IPC, registered at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur.
2. The prosecutrix alleged that she had love affair with the accused (petitioner). Her parents married her on 5.3.2017 against her wishes with someone else. It is alleged that she was enticed by the petitioner to get divorce and to marry him. They were having physical relations. In the end of 2019 she got divorce from her husband. She had pain in the stomach for which she was administered medicine and she got infected for which she got treatment from Civil Hospital Mahilpur. Thereafter even both continued to have physical relationship. On 29.9.2020 the petitioner gave a complaint against brother of the prosecutrix that they have forcibly left her in his house. The petitioner refused to marry the prosecutrix.
3. Reply dated 31.3.2021 filed is taken on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the parties had consensual relationship. There was no promise of marriage by the petitioner. The challan stands presented. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
5. Learned State counsel opposes the bail and on instructions from SI Om Parkash submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious.
6. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, suffice to say that the parties had relationship prior to 2017. Even as per the allegations in the FIR inspite of some vague statement of about stomach problem, it is forthcoming that the parties were having continuos physical relationship. Albeit, challan is presented, conclusion of trial is likely to take time and no recovery is to be made, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court/Duty Magistrate.
7. The petition is allowed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
