Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2449 (PNJ)

Bikram Walia v. State of Punjab

2019-09-03

HARI PAL VERMA

body2019
Judgment Mr. Hari Pal Verma, J. (Oral):-Prayer in this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is forgrant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 13, dated 29.01.2019,under Section 307 IPC, registered at Police Station City Kapurthala, DistrictKapurthala. 2. The aforesaid FIR has been registered at the behest of theprosecutrix, who is about 31 years of age and her marriage had solemnizedon 23.05.2010 with Anil Kapoor son of Gulshan Lal Kapoor. She gave birthto a son in the year 2011. As per the FIR, the prosecutrix was a teacher atPrem Jot Public Senior Secondary School, Ajit Nagar, Kapurthala and shehad a love affairs with the petitioner, to whom she started making calls ontelephone. In response thereto, the petitioner had also started calling her.The petitioner had offered to marry with her and the prosecutrix accordinglygave her consent. On 24.01.2019, when the prosecutrix had gone to school,the petitioner called her on telephone and asked her to come at ShaniMandir, near Shalamar Bagh. The prosecutrix had gone there on her Scootywhere the petitioner met her. He took her on her Scooty to VillageMushakvaid at the house of his uncle Naili and introduced the victim thatshe is his sister-in-law. He took her in a room and committed rape upon her.Thereafter, after mortgaging her Scooty with his uncle Naili, the petitionertook the prosecutrix to Delhi by bus, with an intention to marry her. Thepetitioner told her that he will marry at Jodhpur and accordingly, he took theprosecutrix to Akash Hotel, Delhi, where he had sexual intercourse with herwithout her consent. When the prosecutrix protested for the same, thepetitioner scratched at her neck with the finger nails of his hands and alsopressed her neck and started saying that if she told this fact to anybody, thenhe will kill her. On the next day, she was taken to Jodhpur by train. Thereagain, he had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. On27.01.2019, after boarding the train, they reached Kapurthala where thewhole incident was narrated by the prosecutrix to her in-laws family. Theprecise allegation is that the petitioner committed rape upon the prosecutrix. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that apart fromthe fact that the petitioner is in custody since 27.03.2019, the prosecutrix isa mature lady of 31/32 years of age, whereas the petitioner is about 21 yearsof age. Theprecise allegation is that the petitioner committed rape upon the prosecutrix. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that apart fromthe fact that the petitioner is in custody since 27.03.2019, the prosecutrix isa mature lady of 31/32 years of age, whereas the petitioner is about 21 yearsof age. She was already married, having a son and therefore, even if therewere sexual relations with her, same were consensual, as throughout herjourney from Kapurthala to Delhi and Delhi to Jodhpur and again back toKapurthala, she has not complained throughout. Otherwise, the trial Courthas to ultimately settle the controversy. At the most the relations betweenthe parties were consensual. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant has arguedthat the petitioner has sexually exploited the prosecutrix. He assured her tosolemnize marriage with her and under the pretext of marriage, heestablished physical relations with her. The prosecutrix was threatened bythe petitioner that he will make the relation public. 5. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI SukhdevSingh, has stated that challan in this case has already been presented. Theprosecution witnesses including the complainant are yet to be examined andthe case is now fixed for 06.09.2019 for prosecution evidence before thetrial Court. In the event of grant of bail to the petitioner, he will influencethe witnesses including the prosecutrix. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The prosecutrix is a matured lady of 32 years of age, whereasthe petitioner is a young boy of 21 years of age. She was already married,having a son and even if it is accepted that the petitioner assured orpromised her to solemnise marriage, even then on the relevant date whenshe was taken to Delhi or Jodhpur, she was already married and could nothave solemnised marriage with petitioner. In this manner, she could notconduct the second marriage with the petitioner without dissolution of herearlier marriage. 8. Be that as it may, the petitioner is in custody since 27.03.2019and trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, the petitioner isadmitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing of his bail bonds/surety bondsto the satisfaction of trial Court. 9. However, it is made clear that the observations madehereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of thecase and the trial Court shall proceed with the trial independently withoutbeing influenced by the order of bail passed by this Court. 10. Present petition stands disposed of accordingly.