Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2607 (PNJ)

Mahesh Mundhra v. State of Haryana

2019-09-19

HARI PAL VERMA

body2019
Judgment Mr. Hari Pal Verma, J. (Oral):-This is the second petition filed by the petitioner under Section439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No.408 dated 12.09.2018 underSections 376, 406, 420 and 506 IPC (Sections 201 and 120-B IPC were addedlater on) registered at Police Station DLF Phase-I, District Gurugram. 2. The earlier petition filed by the petitioner i.e. CRM-M-10255 of2019 was dismissed as withdrawn at that stage vide order dated May 27, 2019passed by this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the FIR,the complainant came in contact of the petitioner through a social site i.e.cupid.com and Whatsapp. The petitioner proposed the complainant formarriage and in order to make her to believe, the petitioner took her to hishouse and introduced with his father. His father gave his consent formarriage. Thereafter, on 01.05.2017, she was taken to Bristol Hotel,Gurugram, where rape was committed upon her. The petitioner assured thathe will marry the prosecutrix. On the pretext of bad health condition of hisfather, he had taken a sum of Rs.21 lakh from her at different points of time.However, when the prosecutrix asked him for marriage, the petitioner notonly refused to return the money rather, refused to solemnise marriage withher and threatened the prosecutrix. 4. He has further contended that the allegation against the petitioneris that he has not only committed sexual assault upon the prosecutrix, rather,usurped money by taking her into confidence. The petitioner is in custodysince 18.09.2018. The earlier petition filed by him was dismissed aswithdrawn considering his less custody. Now, he is in custody for the last oneyear. The dispute between the parties is regarding money transaction. Theprosecutrix has conveniently withheld the transaction part, though Rs.5.5 lakhwas already given to the prosecutrix and a cheque was issued by the father ofthe petitioner for a sum of Rs.16.5 lakh, which was bounced. The petitioner isready to pay the said amount of Rs.16.5 lakh to the prosecutrix and he willoffer this amount to the prosecutrix before the trial Court. 5. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI GyaninderSingh, states that out of 13 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 6 witnesseshave already been examined in the case. The petitioner isready to pay the said amount of Rs.16.5 lakh to the prosecutrix and he willoffer this amount to the prosecutrix before the trial Court. 5. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI GyaninderSingh, states that out of 13 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 6 witnesseshave already been examined in the case. Since the petitioner has establishedphysical relations with the complainant on the pretext of marriage, he is notentitled for bail in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.629 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) 618 of 2019 titledas Anurag Soni Versus State of Chhatisgarh decided on 09.04.2019. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner is in custody since 18.09.2018. The variousdocuments do reflect that there is some money dispute between the petitionerand prosecutrix and the petitioner has fairly admitted that he is ready to payRs.16.5 lakh to the prosecutrix and will make this offer even before the trialCourt during the trial. The trial is not likely to be concluded in near future.Therefore, having recourse to the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1165 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) 2712 of 2019titled as Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Versus The State of Maharashtra and another decided on 21.08.2019, this Court finds that the allegation as towhether the petitioner has taken consent of the prosecutrix by misconceptionis yet to be decided. Therefore, the petitioner deserves to be admitted on bail. 8. Therefore, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner isordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and suretybonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. 9. It is made clear that the petitioner shall offer the amount ofRs.16.5 lakh to the prosecutrix on the next date of hearing before the trialCourt. 10. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner influencesthe prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly, the prosecutionshall be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail. 11. The observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as anexpression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decidethe case without being influenced with these observations in any manner.