CRM-M-24258-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] ::::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24258-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:17.08.2011. Gurcharan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. H.S.Saggu, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is an NRI who has filed this petition for grant of pre-arrest bail through his General Power of Attorney in a case registered vide FIR No.5 dated 10.04.2009, under Sections 420 and 376 IPC at Police Station NRI Ludhiana City, District Ludhiana. The FIR is registered by Monika Rani (complainant) by alleging that she is a divorcee. In December, 2005, Satish Kumar Verma and Gurcharan Singh Virdi approached her widowed mother and told that the petitioner who is a widower, aged 45 years, is coming to India from London and wanted to marry Monika. Satish Kumar Verma is running a marriage bureau. The complainant and her family members agreed to the said proposal and on 12.03.2006, her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner in Satya Narain Mandir and the ceremonies were photographed. After their marriage, they visited various tourist places like Shimla, Kullu Manali etc. In the year 2006, the petitioner left for London with the promise that he would come back after winding up his business but he did not return and the complainant came to know that he was already married with Raj Kaur at London and has three sons who are living with him in London. It is further alleged that her husband had made a false representation at the time of marriage and has not only cheated her but has also committed rape upon her. On these allegations, the aforesaid FIR was registered under CRM-M-24258-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] ::::::::: Sections 420 and 376 IPC. Before approaching this Court, the petitioner had applied for bail before the learned Court below which was dismissed on 24.12.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out because the complainant herself has alleged that she was the wife of the petitioner. He has further submitted that if a person promises to marry and has sexual relations, then it would not fall within the definition of Section 376 IPC. In this regard, he has relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Pardeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar and another, 2007(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 51 and K.P.Thimmappa Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 2011(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 589. However, he could not defend the petitioner on the issue of cheating as he was already married having three children who are living with him there in London and thus had no business to marry the complainant in India by concealing the said marriage because the petitioner being a Hindu cannot enter into second matrimony during the subsistence of his first marriage. These type of offences are rising at an alarming rate in Punjab. Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it to be a case for grant of pre-arrest bail and hence the present petition is hereby dismissed. August 17, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE