Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 February, 2022
CRM-M-11260-2021 1
223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-11260-2021
Date of decision : 15.02.2022
Amandeep Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present: Mr. Kanwalvir Singh Kang, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Kulwinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate
for the complainant.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
Matter has been taken up through video conferencing via
Webex facility in the light of the Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per
instructions.
Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case FIR No.152 dated 08.10.2020, under Sections 376, 506 of
the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Passiana, District Patiala.
As per factual matrix of the case, the present FIR was lodged
by the prosecutrix (name concealed) wherein it was alleged that she got
married 10 years ago with Kulwant Singh son of Darbara Singh and blessed
with one daughter out of the marriage. The house of petitioner Amandeep
Singh was near to her house. He allured her and established physical
1 of 4
relations with her from the last three years. On 24.09.2020, Amandeep
Singh (petitioner) asked her to sleep on the terrace and when she denied, he
threatened to defame her and due to fear, she slept on the terrace and her
husband on that night had gone to water the fields. At about 10:00 PM,
Amandeep Singh came to her and raped her against her wishes. On
resistence, he had beaten her and gave her injuries on right eye. He also
threatened her to be killed. Aggrieved by the conduct of the petitioner in
threatening and raping her against her wishes, the prosecutrix approached
the police and lodged the present FIR with a request to take legal action
against the petitioner. The investigation commenced and the petitioner was
arrested on 08.10.2020. Thereafter, he approached the learned Sessions
Judge, Patiala for grant of bail, who after hearing counsel for the parties,
dismissed the same vide her order dated 01.02.2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that
the present case is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. He
submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, at the most, the
relationship between the petitoiner and the prosecutrix is consensual one.
Both are of the age of majority and there cannot be said to have any
misconception of the fact on the part of the petitioner. He has drawn the
attention of the Court to the statement of her husband recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein, the husband has recorded that at about 11:00
PM when he returned to his home, he heard some noise from the terrace. On
reaching there he saw Amandeep Singh was lying with his wife in the bed
and he was beating her. He submits that the statement of the husband is
totally unbelievable. He has further submitted that charges were framed in
2 of 4
this case on 18th April, 2021 and thereafter, the trial Court had adjourned the
case for number of times for the examination of the prosecutrix. However,
despite number of opportunities granted till date, the prosecutrix has not
come forward for her examination. He has referred to the zimni orders of the
trial Court wherein the case was adjourned four times. Either the
prosecutrix is seeking exemption or she remained absent. He has also
drawn the attention of this Court to the orders wherein the trial Court had to
issue bailable warrants with one surety of Rs.5,000/- for securing her
presence. He submits that from the facts and circumstances of the case and
the conduct of the prosecutrix it is enough to conclude that the same is
being done only to prolong the incarceration of the petitioner behind the
bars. He has relied upon the judgment titled as Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and others (2019) 9 SCC 608.
He further submits that there are no other cases against the petitioner and in
the present case also he has been falsley implicated. He submits that in the
overall facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner deserves to be
enlarged on bail.
Learned State counsel submits that there are specific allegations
against the petitioner wherein the petitioner has established physical
relationship with the prosecutrix without her consent. She acknowledged the
fact that the charges were framed on 18.04.2021, however, till date, the
prosecutrix could not be examined even after the order passed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there are
serious allegations against the petitioner and hence, he deserves no leniency.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
3 of 4
records.
Petitioner is behind the bars since 08.10.2020. In the facts and
circumstances of the case when both the petitioner and the prosecutrix are
of the age of majority, whether the offence under Section 376 IPC is
attracted or not is totally a subject matter of the trial, to be inferred by the
trial Court on the appreciation of the evidence to be led before it by the
parties. However, from the date of framing of charge till date the prosecutrix
has not come forward for her examination. This Court adjourned the case
number of times for examination of the prosecutrix, however, the position
remains the same. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case, learned
counsel for the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for grant of
regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner
is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said
herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
15.02.2022 JUDGE
m. sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
