Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1420 (PNJ)

Mangal Singh v. State Of Haryana

2001-12-21

R.C.KATHURIA

body2001
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. Mangal Singh, petitioner-accused had applied for anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 350 dated 9.10.2001 registered under Sections 376, 342 and 506 I.P.C. with Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. 2. The case set-up the complaint (name withheld) is that she had married Ranjit Singh son of the petitioner on 27.11.1995. Right from the date of her marriage, the petitioner, who is father-in-law of the complainant, had a lustful eye on her and wanted to have illicit relations with her but she was saved by her mother-in-law from him during her life time. The mother-in-law of the complainant had died in September, 1997. Few days after the `Kirya ceremony, the complainant was confined in a room by the petitioner and under the threat of physical harm committed rape on her. At that time her husband had been sent out by the petitioner on the pretext of some work. Thereafter as and when the petitioner would move out of the house, he would confine the complainant in a room. Thereafter, the petitioner committed rape on her several times. When her husband objected to the action of the petitioner, he caught hold of him and gave electric shock on his hands and legs. This process continued till 4.10.2001. 3. On 4.10.2001 at about 8.00 a.m., the petitioner committed rape twice on her. She narrated about this incident to her husband Ranjit Singh. Thereafter, the complainant and her husband were confined in a room under the care of four other persons, who had muffled their faces. On the next day, the petitioner left the complainant and her husband at Gurdwara Bhaini Sahib, District Ludhiana. While leaving them, he had threatened that if they disclosed this incident to anybody else, they would be killed along with their minor son who is aged four years. The entire incident was reported to Jaswinder Singh, who is husband of sister of Ranjit Singh. The case is still under investigation. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties at length. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused, while pressing for bail, has contended before me that the complainant is not the wife of Ranjit Singh son of the petitioner as he was married to Baljinder Kaur resident of Sirsa. Further according to him Ranjit Singh had fallen in bad company. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties at length. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused, while pressing for bail, has contended before me that the complainant is not the wife of Ranjit Singh son of the petitioner as he was married to Baljinder Kaur resident of Sirsa. Further according to him Ranjit Singh had fallen in bad company. He started beating his wife Baljinder Kaur with the result she deserted him and left him to live with her parents. She also got registered case bearing FIR No. 296 dated 9.11.1991 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 452 reads with Section 34 I.P.C. against Ranjit Singh and other family members at Police Station, Ranian, District Sirsa and divorce proceedings are also pending against him in the Court at Sirsa. It was also highlighted by him that Ranjit Singh is a man of easy virtue and was having illicit relations with 3-4 other women and never resided in the house with his wife. With this background, the petitioner had disinherited Ranjit Singh and a public notice was also issued in the Dainik Bhaskar dated 7.10.2001 in this regard. It was also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who is 80 years old, had sold land worth Rs. 15 lacs on 8.9.2001 and Ranjit Singh with the help of the complainant wanted to take share in the said amount which was not agreed to by him. He also referred to the civil suit titled Harpreet Kaur v. Mangal Singh and others in which the daughter of the petitioner had sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining him from selling the property and that daughter of the petitioner at the behest of Randhir Singh and complainant is out to blackmail him on account of this false case by putting up a concocted story. 6. State counsel has submitted before me that the allegations against the petitioner-accused being grave and the manner in which the crime has been committed by him, the benefit of bail be not extended to him. 7. I need not go into the merits of the respective stands taken by the counsel representing the parties before me as these can be effectively decided during the trial of the case. 7. I need not go into the merits of the respective stands taken by the counsel representing the parties before me as these can be effectively decided during the trial of the case. At the same time, one patent fact which cannot be ignored is that as per allegations made by the complainant she was subjected to rape for the first time in the year September, 1997 and thereafter on several times rape had been committed upon her by the petitioner but at no stage report was lodged with the Police prior to 4.10.2001. 8. Keeping in view of the totality of circumstances on record, the interim order of bail dated 6.11.2001 of this Court is confirmed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner he shall be admitted to anticipatory bail by the Arresting Officer on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with a surety in the like amount undertaking therein to abide by the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.