IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-14020 of 2009 Date of decision : August 28, 2009 Nadim Yunus alias Bunty ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. JS Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Criminal Misc. No. 43252 of 2009 The application is allowed and Annexures P/2 and P/3 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Criminal Misc. No. M-14020 of 2009 Nadim Yunus alias Bunty has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 271 dated 19.12.2008 under sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. As per allegations in the FIR, husband of the prosecutrix died in the year 1996. Some days after his death, the petitioner came forcibly into the house of the prosecutrix against her wishes and started having Criminal Misc. No. M-14020 of 2009 -2- forcible intercourse with her. The process continued and the prosecutrix gave birth to a son on 3.2.2004. Thereafter the petitioner never came to the prosecutrix till the night of 11/12-12-2008, when the petitioner came and threatened to eliminate the prosecutrix and her children and on point of knife committed rape upon her. The prosecutrix made application on 15.12.2008 and thereafter the instant case was registered on 19.12.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that it was a case of consensual sex which was continued for years and the prosecutrix even gave birth to a son. It was also contended that the prosecutrix has issues eldest of whom may be around 30 years as depicted by ration card Annexure P/3 issued in the year 1986 and in the presence of five grown up children, the petitioner could not have committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that all the five children of the prosecutrix were not at home at the time of occurrence and only two of them, aged 18 years daughter and 14 years son were there and sleeping in the court-yard. It was also contended that even if it was alleged consensual sexual intercourse till the birth of the son on 3.2.2004, thereafter the occurrence on the night of 11/12-12-2008 was of forcible sexual intercourse. The petitioner is in custody since 28.12.2008 i.e. for more than 8 months. Keeping in view all the circumstances but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits, the instant bail petition is allowed. Bail Criminal Misc. No. M-14020 of 2009 -2- to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 28, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'