Crl.Misc.No.12194-M of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.12194-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 21.7.2008 Narinder Singh ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present:- Mr.R.S.Cheema, Sr.Advocate with Mr.K.S.Nalwa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.I.P.S.Sidhu, Sr.DAG Punjab. Mr.S.S.Randhawa, Advocate for the complainant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case registered vide FIR No.211 dated 14.9.2004, under Sections 494, 498-A, 420, 120-B IPC (apprehension of further being implicated for an offence under Section 376 IPC) registered at P.S.City, Hoshiarpur. Tersely, the allegations contained in the FIR are that petitioner had got married to one Rozi at Karnal and is having two children from the wedlock. Thereafter, without getting divorce from the earlier marriage, the petitioner got married to one Gurpreet Kaur of Ferozepur. Out of this wedlock, baby girl was Crl.Misc.No.12194-M of 2008 -2- born and then without getting divorce from the second marriage, the petitioner had got married to the complainant, therefore, the petitioner had committed the aforesaid offence. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner had surrendered before the police in the aforesaid FIR on 6.4.2004 and was granted regular bail by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 22.4.2005. The complainant filed a revision against order dated 22.4.2005 before Addl.Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur who vide his order dated 15.6.2005, remanded back the bail matter to the ACJM with a direction to pass a fresh order after looking into all the aspects of the matter. The petitioner then preferred petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 15.6.2005 before this Court vide Crl.M.No.33082-M of 2005 but the same was dismissed on 18.7.2005. On 26.7.2005, bail matter of the petitioner came up before ACJM, Hoshiarpur, who vide his order dated 26.7.2005, sent the case to Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur requesting for its transfer to some other Court as he had earlier expressed his opinion. During the pendency of the said bail application, the Investigating Agency submitted its report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for an offence only under Section 494 IPC and the parents and married sister of the petitioner were kept in Column No.2. Since the offence under Section 494 IPC was bailable, the Crl.Misc.No.12194-M of 2008 -3- petitioner was granted bail. It is further contended that vide order dated 9.1.2006, charge was framed under Section 494 IPC and case was adjourned for prosecution evidence for 17.4.2006. It is further contended that the complainant had filed a Criminal Revision before Addl.Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur against order dated 9.1.2006 alleging that charge has been wrongly framed only under Section 494 IPC and as per allegations in the challan offence under Sections 406,494,498-A,420,496,376,120-B IPC is made out but the same was dismissed on 8.3.2007 on the ground that it was categorically observed by the D.S.P. during investigation that except for an offence under Section 494 IPC, no other offence is made out. It is further submitted that against order dated 8.3.2007, the complainant had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. namely Crl.M.No.38976-M of 2007 whereby vide order dated 6.12.2007 orders dated 9.1.2006 and 8.3.2007 passed by ACJM and ASJ, Hoshiarpur were set aside and the Judicial Magistrate was directed to proceed in the matter in the light of observations made to commit the case to Sessions Court to try the respondent for an offence under Section 376 IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application for recalling and modification of order dated 6.12.2007 vide Crl.M.No.767 of 2008 in Crl.M.No.38976-M of 2007 but the same was dismissed by this Court on 14.1.2008 with a costs of Rs.10,000/-. Crl.Misc.No.12194-M of 2008 -4- Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is apprehending arrest in view of order dated 6.12.2007 and has argued that the petitioner has already been granted bail and it is only a case of up-scaling the charge under Section 376 IPC. It is also argued that it is no where proved that the marriage has been consummated, therefore, no case under Section 376 IPC is made out. Counsel for the respondent-complainant has argued that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence as he is duping innocent girls one after the other on the pretext of marriage without even divorcing the earlier one. I have heard counsel the parties and have perused the record. At this stage, when allegations are to be seen on its face value, the petitioner has allegedly spoiled the lives of three innocent ladies and has committed a heinous crime. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and as such, the present petition is dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 21.7.2008 Judge Meenu