Sumeet Zutshi vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 1628 j&K

                                                                Sr. No. 75
        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU
                                            Bail App No. 372/2021

Sumeet Zutshi                                   .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

                     Through: Mr. Koshal Parihar, Advocate.

                Vs
                                                          ..... Respondent(s)
Union Territory of J&K and another

                     Through: Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG for R-1
                              Mr. Anil Sethi, Advocate for R-2.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE

                                  ORDER

1. The petitioner-accused seeks bail in anticipation of arrest in

FIR No. 303/2021 registered for offences under Sections 376/420

IPC with Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu on a written

complaint lodged by the complainant-respondent No.2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the court through the

written complaint filed by the complainant against him in order to

impress upon the court that the contents of the complaint on bare

reading do not make out any case under Sections 376/420 IPC

against the petitioner. The contention is that the contents of the

complaint reveal that the complainant had relationship with the

accused of her own will and was in the knowledge of the marital

status of the petitioner at that time. The complainant was herself

married when she developed relationship with the petitioner. As

both the parties had marital dispute, the petitioner-accused

convinced the complainant that he will marry the complainant after

obtaining divorce from his wife. The complaint has been lodged

after two and a half years of the first physical relationship between

the complainant and the accused and it is no where mentioned that

the petitioner had forcibly committed any wrong with the

complainant as per the complaint is also the argument of the learned

counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted by the counsel for the

petitioner that the marriage between the complainant and her

husband has been dissolved by mutual consent by the court of

learned Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases), Jammu vide

judgment dated 30.05.2020 whereas the Divorce Petition between

the petitioner and his wife is still pending disposal before the court

of law. The petitioner being not having been divorced legally from

his wife, therefore, he cannot enter into marriage with the

complainant as is submitted in the complaint that the marriage

between the complainant and the accused is to take place legally.

The petitioner is entitled to bail keeping in view the allegations

contained in the FIR itself. The petitioner being government

servant, there is no possibility of the petitioner not cooperating with

the investigating agency.

3. Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG submits that the conduct of the

petitioner speaks of inducing the complainant into physical

relationship without having any intention to marry her.

4. Mr. Anil Sethi, Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 has

argued that the petitioner has cheated upon the complainant and

induced her into relationship though never intending to marry the

complainant. The complainant has been physically and mentally

tortured by the petitioner and the facts of the case do not entitle the

petitioner to any relief in the application.

5. The FIR has been lodged against the petitioner herein for offences

under Sections 376/420 IPC. It is revealed from the FIR that the

petitioner and the complainant are engineers in the same

department, the complainant and the accused were already married

by the time they developed relationship, the petitioner did not

forcibly commit himself upon the complainant and that the

arrangement was that the petitioner will marry lawfully the

complainant after the divorce is effected of the petitioner with his

wife. After going through the contents of the FIR and hearing the

learned counsels, the Court is of the considered view that the case is

made out for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest in favour of the

petitioner herein. The petitioner is a government servant and there is

no reason to believe that he will not make himself available during

investigation in case the bail is granted in his favour.

6. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner

in FIR No. 303/2021 registered with Police Station, Gandhi Nagar,

Jammu, the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to furnishing

of bail bond and personal bond to the tune of Rs.20,000/- each to

the satisfaction of the I.O. The petitioner-accused shall join the

investigation within two days. The accused shall not try to tamper

with the investigation directly or indirectly. The order shall remain

in operation till next date of hearing. The respondents shall be at

liberty to file detailed objections to the petition.

7. List on 21.12.2021.

(Puneet Gupta) Judge Jammu 07.12.2021 Pawan Chopra

PAWAN CHOPRA 2021.12.07 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document