IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-199 of 2011 Date of Decision: 18.01.2011 Jyoti .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mrs. Savita Bhandari, 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. 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 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in a case FIR No. 19 dated 19.02.2010 under Sections 498-A, 420/406 IPC registered at Police Station Tigaon, Faridabad. FIR was lodged by British National now named as Vaijenti Mala with the allegation that in the month July, 2004 she had come to visit India and meanwhile introduced to Anil Kumar. Anil Kumar became friendly with her and proposed to marry with her and on 12.10.2004 he took her to his house at Faridabad and introduced the complainant to all his family members; Anil Kumar, his mother and other family members told her that as per Indian customs, she has to give dowry to the bridegroom and his family and they demanded Crl. Misc. No. M-199 of 2011 2 cash of Rs. 15 lacs, jewellary, car, household articles and gold chains for mother of Anil and sister of Anil and Rs. 2000/- cash to each members of his family which she has paid and thereafter she left for U.K. on 17.10.2004; Anil Kumar requested her to come back to India to help him in getting the passport issued and on that she once again came to Delhi on 13.1.2005 and paid Rs. 40,000/- cash for getting the passport issued. It is alleged that Anil Kumar has obtained ex-parte divorce decree without any notice and information to the complainant and kept on having sexual intercourse with her on the pretext that she is his legally wedded wife without disclosing that he has already obtained ex-parte divorce. From the contents of the FIR prima facie it is proved that a foreign national/complainant was induced to part with the money by playing fraud on her. Having sexual intercourse without telling her about the dissolution of marriage is a rape. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 18.01.2011 JUDGE reena