Allowed

Kawalpreet Singh Chahal v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Dec 2014CRM-M/14476/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court granted bail to the petitioner accused of rape. The Court noted the complainant's prior offer of compromise and withdrawal of complaint, observing that cited precedents were distinguishable based on facts.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; anticipatory bail granted; petitioner directed to join investigation and abide by Section 438(2) conditions.

Kawalpreet Singh Chahal Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Criminal Misc.No.M-14476 of 2014

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No.M-14476 of 2014 Date of Decision: December 05, 2014

¶5

Kawalpreet Singh Chahal

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.Ritesh Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.K.S.Pannu, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr.Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶14

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. (Oral)

¶15

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C., is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Kawalpreet Singh Chahal, who has been booked for having committed the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.145, dated 18.11.2013, registered at Police Station, Guman Kalan, District Gurdaspur.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that it was not possible for the petitioner to have committed rape on the prosecutrix (name withheld) who is 22 years old and a qualified nurse; as per the complaint, the prosecutrix remained for three years with the petitioner and had sex with him and now

¶17

SEEMA RANI 2014.12.05 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

[2]

¶19

Criminal Misc.No.M-14476 of 2014

¶20

the allegations of rape have been levelled; the matter was inquired into up to the level of Senior Superintendent of Police and the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix were not substantiated against the petitioner. He further submits that the complaint, allegedly filed by the prosecutrix, was later withdrawn from the police. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance of the order dated 29.04.2014, the petitioner did join the investigation and co-operated with the Investigating Agency. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the matter of

¶21

Uday vs. State of Karnataka, 2003(2) RCR(Criminal) 99 .

¶22

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Jagtar Singh, Police Station, Sekhon, District Gurdaspur, very fairly concedes that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required for further custodial interrogation in the present case. He further concedes that the matter was inquired into by the Women Cell, Gurdaspur, and the complaint filed by the prosecutrix was proposed to be withdrawn by her mother on the basis of compromise with the petitioner. He further submits that the said fact was approved by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur but later on, the prosecutrix decided to pursue her complaint, therefore, the present case has been registered.

¶23

SEEMA RANI 2014.12.05 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

Criminal Misc.No.M-14476 of 2014

¶25

[3]

¶26

Learned counsel for the complainant, who is present with the prosecutrix in the Court, has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He has placed reliance on the matters of State of UP vs. Naushad, 2014(1) RCR(Criminal) 173 and Vipan Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, 2005(1) RCR(Criminal) 158 and Ram Niwas vs. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR(Criminal) 215.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

¶28

As per prosecutrix herself, the petitioner remained with her for three years but later refused to solemnize the marriage with her. It has emerged on record that the matter was thoroughly inquired into by the Women Cell, Gurdaspur and during the said inquiry, the mother of prosecutrix proposed to withdraw her complaint. The said fact was approved by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur. Later on, the prosecutrix took a U turn and insisted the police to register the FIR and as such, the present case was registered. As per learned counsel for the State, the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required for further investigation in the present case. He has also admitted the fact that during pendency of the inquiry before the Women Cell, Gurdaspur,

¶29

SEEMA RANI 2014.12.05 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

[4]

¶31

Criminal Misc.No.M-14476 of 2014

¶32

mother of the prosecutrix suffered the statement for withdrawal of the complaint presented by the prosecutrix on the basis of compromise. The said fact was approved by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur. The judgment cited by both the sides except Vipin Kumar's case (supra) are on merits. So far as Vipin Kumar's case (supra) is concerned, that was the case of gang rape and the facts were entirely on different footings. The judgments cited hereinabove are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.

¶33

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is accepted. Interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2014 are made absolute.

¶34

The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2), Cr.P.C.

¶35

December 05, 2014 seema

¶36

(Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge

¶37

SEEMA RANI 2014.12.05 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Kawalpreet Singh Chahal v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kawalpreet Singh Chahal v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asha Rani Vs Senior Superintendent of Police and Ors.

Gaurav Jain and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Sunil & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Malagar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurbaksh Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Anil Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.