Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prateek Rustogi vs State Of Haryana on 3 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No. 217 CRM-M-27529-2022
Date of decision : 03.08.2022
Prateek Rustogi ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
Present: Mr.Aditya Sanghi, Advocate, and
Mr.Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.
*******
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for
the grant of regular bail in FIR No. 361 dated 05.11.2021 registered under
Sections 376(2)(n), 506 and 509 IPC at Police Station Sector 9-A, Gurugram.
The prosecutrix filed a complaint with the police as per which in
the year 2018, after she had got divorce from her earlier husband, she got in
touch with the petitioner on a website-shaadi.com. Thereafter, in September of
the year 2019, on the asking of the petitioner the prosecutrix met him in Delhi
and thereafter they went to Haridwar. During such period the petitioner
repeatedly raped the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage. However, at a later
stage he refused to marry her and even blocked her calls. The prosecutrix then
came to know that the petitioner was in relation with several other girls. On the
basis of the afore complaint the police registered the FIR in question.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has
been embroiled in this case when consensual relations between the petitioner
and the prosecutrix turned sour; the petitioner and the prosecutrix, who are both
divorcees, were in a consensual relationship for a period of about two years and
1 of 3
CRM-M-27529-2022 [2]
therefore, Section 376(2)(n) IPC is not even attracted to the facts of the instant
case; the petitioner is in custody since 30.11.2021; investigation in this case is
complete; the prosecutrix has already been examined in the petitioner's trial; the
prosecutrix even refused to undergo a medical examination; the prosecutrix also
refused to give her samples to be sent for forensic examination and that in the
light of the afore submissions the petitioner's further incarceration is not
warranted.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner
relied on the following judgments: -
1.Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs State of Maharashtra and another
(2019) 9 SCC 608.
2. Maheshwar Tigga vs State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC 108.
3.Order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No(s).442-2022 Mandar Deepak Pawar vs The
State of Maharashtra and another.
Learned State counsel opposes grant of bail to the petitioner on the
ground that he has repeatedly raped a lady on the pretext of marriage.
The petitioner and the prosecutrix, both adults, were known to each
other for a period of about two years. Therefore, it would be debated during the
course of the petitioner's trial as to whether sexual relations alleged to have
developed between them were consensual or forced. Nonetheless, the petitioner
is in custody since 30.11.2021; the prosecutrix stands already examined in the
petitioner's trial; the prosecutrix even refused to undergo a medical examination
and that as per the FSL report no sample of the prosecutrix was even sent by the
prosecution for forensic examination.
In view of the above, the present case is considered to be a fit one
in which the petitioner be directed to be released on regular bail. Resultantly,
subject to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate, Gurugram, the petitioner
2 of 3
CRM-M-27529-2022 [3]
is directed to be released on bail.
It is clarified that the above observations have been made only for
the limited purpose of deciding the present regular bail application and the same
would not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
03.08.2022 [DEEPAK SIBAL]
shamsher JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
