CRM No. M- 11247 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM No. M- 11247 of 2009(O&M) Decided on:- 21.07.2009 Sumeet Mahajan ……Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri Present Mr. Mansur Ali,Advocate and Mr. H. S. Deol, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K. S. Pannu, DAG, Punjab. K. C. Puri, J.(Oral ) Petitioner-Sumeet Mahajan has moved an application for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 13 dated 15.1.2009, under Sections 420, 376 IPC, P. S. Division No.8, Jalandhar. As per allegations of the prosecution, prosecutrix and accused have developed intimacy with each other and it is alleged that accused under false promise of marriage committed rape upon her. It is further alleged that prosecutrix spent huge amount for setting up a shop for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State assisted by Mr. R. S. Bajaj,Advocate for the complainant has opposed the bail application and has submitted that offence under Section 376 and 420 IPC is made out and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. On the other land learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in authorities Uday v. State of Karnataka 2003(2) RCR (Criminal)99, the Apex Court has held that where the accused has a sexual intercourse with consent and accused did not marry in that case no offence of rape is made out. He has also relied upon authorities Pradeep Kumar @ Pardeep Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar and another 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 51 and Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar 2004 (4) RCR(Criminal) 972. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and CRM No. M- 11247 of 2009 2 have also gone through the record of the case. The fact that prosecutrix had a sex with petitioner is not disputed by either of the parties. The only question left to be determined is whether petitioner had a sex with false promise of marriage. That question can only be determined during the course of trial. The petitioner is stated to be in custody since 9.3.2009. Keeping in view the ratio of the above said authorities, without commenting on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case to allow the concession of bail. Consequently, bail to the satisfaction of trial Court. July 21, 2009 ( K.C. Puri ) Mamta Judge