Crl. Misc. No.M-25351 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-25351 of 2010 Date of decision: 09.11.2010 Satish Kumar @ Kaka .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .. Respondent Present:- Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, A.A.G., Punjab. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 25.06.2010 for the offences under Section 366 and 376 IPC at Police Station Bhikhi, District Mansa. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Jugraj Singh, who is the husband of the prosecutrix. It is alleged by the complainant that he was married to the prosecutrix on 03.12.1998 and they have two children out of their marriage. On 23.06.2010 at about 12.00 Noon, when the son of the father's sister (Bhua) of the complainant namely Gurlal Singh was with him and they were about 15-20 karams away from their house, they saw in front of their house that Harnek Singh and Satish Kumar @ Kaka (petitioner) taking away his wife (prosecutrix), aged 32 years against her wishes and by false representation of getting married to her. They put her on the motor cycle between them by misguiding her and also took away a bag with them. The motor cycle was driven by Harnek Singh. On the raising a noise by the complainant and his Crl. Misc. No.M-25351 of 2010 ::2:: father's sister's (Bhua's) son "Gurlal Singh; Mukand Singh and Gajjan Singh also came at the spot and they saw the entire incident. Later, when the complainant reached home, he made a search of his belongings and he found that Harnek Singh and Satish Kumar @ Kaka (petitioner) had taken `25,000/- in cash; besides, jewellery weighing 16 Tolas. It is alleged that Satish Kumar @ Kaka (petitioner) had abducted the wife of the complainant against her wishes and by making false representation to her of getting married to her and by misguiding her. He had been searching for his wife till the date of filing the report but he could not locate her. It was requested that action be taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations as made by the complainant Jugraj Singh are absolutely false inasmuch as in the divorce petition (Annexure A-1) filed by him against his wife and Satish Kumar @ Kaka (present petitioner), it has been alleged by the complainant that his wife is living an adulterous life with the petitioner for the last more than three years. It is alleged that despite being warned, she did not resist from her bad habits. Besides, it has been averred by the complainant that his wife had run away with Satish Kumar @ Kaka (petitioner) along with gold jewellery and cash. It has also been alleged that his wife had got the FIR registered against the petitioner whereas the factual position is that it is the complainant-Jugraj Singh who had got the FIR registered and not his wife. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the wife of the complainant in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has submitted that she has been raped by the petitioner. Besides, in the chemical examination report, spermatoza was detected from the exhibits that were sent for chemical analysis. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it Crl. Misc. No.M-25351 of 2010 ::3:: may be noticed that the prosecution is to establish its case. The complainant-Jugraj Singh had lodged the FIR against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had abducted his wife against her wishes by making a false representation of getting married with her and by misleading her. However, in the petition for divorce filed on 04.10.2010 (Annexure A- 1), it has been alleged that his wife had illicit relations with the petitioner and was living an adulterous life with him for the last more than three years. Despite, being warned, she did not desist from her bad habits rather she had developed deep relations with the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner in his divorce petition (Annexure A-1) that his wife had run away with Satish Kumar @ Kaka (petitioner) along with gold jewellery and cash amount of `25,000/-. After spending some days, she came to her house and her parents gave a beating to her and rebuked her. It is alleged that his wife got registered FIR against the petitioner i.e. the present FIR under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. Therefore, there are indeed substantial inconsistencies between the allegations as made by the complainant in the FIR and in the divorce petition (Annexure A-1) filed by him. This, however, is to be gone into and considered by the learned trial Court after evidence has been led. As regards the report of the Chemical Examiner, the same is also to be considered by the learned trial Court and is not liable to be gone into at this stage. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner on furnishing his personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, shall be admitted to bail. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE November 09, 2010 sukhpreet