211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 05.02.2025 VIPIN SHARMA ....Petitioner Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Mr. G.S. Sullar, Advocate and Mr. Haneesh Kumar, Advocate for petitioner.

Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Arjun Dhingra, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

AMARJOT BHATTI, J.

1. Petitioner - Vipin Sharma has filed instant petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 326 dated 28.10.2024 under Section 69 of BNS registered at Police Station Old Faridabad, District Faridabad, Haryana (Annexure P-1)

2. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner was granted interim bail vide order dated 20.11.2024 by Coordinate Bench of this Court and relevant portion thereof runs as under:-

“Prayer in this 1st petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 326 dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Old Faridabad, District Faridabad, Haryana.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the victim in the present case is 25 years old grown up lady who is working in the same company as that of the petitioner. The petitioner and the victim became friends in April, 2024 and thereafter by mutual consent physical relations have developed between them. It is submitted that the petitioner had made it very clear to the victim/complainant that he will not marry against the wishes of his family; and with this knowledge the victim had willingly entered into physical relations with the petitioner. Now, the present FIR has been lodged by the victim/complainant on 28.10.2024, alleging that the petitioner had committed rape upon her on the pretext of marriage. It is argued that consensual physical relations between two adults does not constitute and offence under Section 376 IPC.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vinod Gupta vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2024(2) RCR (Criminal) 175 and Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra and another 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 274, as per which consensual physical relationship between two adults does not constitute an offence under Section 69 of the BNS, on the pretext of marriage.

Further, it is submitted that in the present case, the one incident of rape had allegedly occurred on 02.07.2024; however, FIR was been registered on 28.10.2024 after delay of almost 04 months. Nothing has to be recovered from the petitioner, therefore, his custodial interrogation is not required. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation as and when required and shall abide by all the terms and conditions imposed upon him.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of Court, Mr. Surinder Kumar Dagar, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State; whereas Mr. Arjun Dhingra, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and submits memo of appearance, which is taken on record. Learned counsel undertakes to furnish Vakalatnama in the Registry within a period to 02 weeks from today. Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has admitted the factum of physical relations with the victim/complainant; as such, petitioner has admitted to the offence. It is contended that the petitioner with deceitful means coerced the victim/complainant to enter into physical relations as, he had promised to marry her. It is further submitted that record of the hotel has also been taken into police custody wherein entries of both, the petitioner and the complainant/victim, are available.

Heard.

Adjourned to 05.02.2025.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to appear befo