This petition sought regular bail in a rape and cheating case. The High Court relied on precedents holding that sex with consent, even if induced by a false promise of marriage, negates the rape charge, stating the issue can only be determined during trial, and granted bail.
Bail granted to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM No. M- 11247 of 2009
1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
CRM No. M- 11247 of 2009(O&M) Decided on:- 21.07.2009
Sumeet Mahajan ……Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab …….Respondent
Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri
Present Mr. Mansur Ali,Advocate and Mr. H. S. Deol, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K. S. Pannu, DAG, Punjab.
K. C. Puri, J.(Oral )
Petitioner-Sumeet Mahajan has moved an application for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 13 dated 15.1.2009, under Sections 420, 376 IPC, P. S. Division No.8, Jalandhar.
As per allegations of the prosecution, prosecutrix and accused have developed intimacy with each other and it is alleged that accused under false promise of marriage committed rape upon her. It is further alleged that prosecutrix spent huge amount for setting up a shop for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the State assisted by Mr. R. S. Bajaj,Advocate for the complainant has opposed the bail application and has submitted that offence under Section 376 and 420 IPC is made out and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
On the other land learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in authorities Uday v. State of Karnataka 2003(2) RCR (Criminal)99, the Apex Court has held that where the accused has a sexual intercourse with consent and accused did not marry in that case no offence of rape is made out. He has also relied upon authorities Pradeep Kumar
@ Pardeep Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar and another 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 51 and Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar 2004
(4) RCR(Criminal) 972.
I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and
CRM No. M- 11247 of 2009 2
have also gone through the record of the case. The fact that prosecutrix had a sex with petitioner is not disputed by either of the parties. The only question left to be determined is whether petitioner had a sex with false promise of marriage. That question can only be determined during the course of trial. The petitioner is stated to be in custody since 9.3.2009.
Keeping in view the ratio of the above said authorities, without commenting on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case to allow the concession of bail.
Consequently, bail to the satisfaction of trial Court.
July 21, 2009 Mamta
( K.C. Puri ) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a rape and cheating case where the prosecutrix consented to sex based on a false promise of marriage.
Whether the question of false promise of marriage can be determined at the bail stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Uday v. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶14
Uday v. State of Karnataka 2003(2) RCR (Criminal)99
Pardeep Kumar Verma v. State of BiharRelied on¶14
Pardeep Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar and another 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 51
Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar v. State of BiharRelied on¶15
Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 972
Sumeet Mahajan
State of Punjab
K. C. Puri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
