CRM-M 7765 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M 7765 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.01.2011 Anil Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Gorav Kathuria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. Mr. M.J. Michael, Advocate, for the complainant. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.19 dated 19.2.2010 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Tigaon, District Faridabad. After investigation, Section 420, 406, 376, 493 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code were added. It is the allegation against the petitioner that the complainant, a British National, who came to visit India in July 2004 was introduced with the accused/petitioner. Accused/petitioner became friendly with her and proposed with the complainant to marry her. Complainant agreed to marry him. Family members of the accused were introduced to the complainant and they made her to understand that as per Indian rites and customs dowry has to be given to the bridegroom side and on CRM-M 7765 of 2010 (O&M) -2- that complainant has paid huge amount as stated in the FIR. As per the FIR, complainant was asked to arrange passport for the accused, which she has readily agreed and paid handsome amount to arrange the passport and visa. During investigation, it is found that petitioner/accused has obtained ex parte divorce against the complainant on 3.3.2009 without the knowledge and service on the complainant. Thereafter accused kept on making sexual relations with the complainant without disclosing her that he had obtained ex parte divorce from her. It is further found that the complainant believing the accused/petitioner as her husband kept on giving her consent to have intercourse with the accused/petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, if complainant was induced to give consent to have intercourse on the pretext that she is legally wedded wife of the accused by playing fraud, that consent cannot be said to be free consent and shall amount to rape as defined under Section 379 IPC. This is a case where accused has not only cheated the complainant and committed rape on her, but also is guilty of defaming the high culture of this nation. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused. Interim order dated 16.3.2010 is recalled. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge January 17, 2011 R.S.