Crl.Misc.No.15635-M of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.15635-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 9.7.2008. Rajinder ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present:- Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Goripuria , DAG Haryana. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case registered vide FIR No.250 dated 10.5.2008, under Sections 420, 376, 506, 120-B IPC, at P.S. City, Jind, District Jind. Tersely, the allegations are that the complainant is a widow having two minor children. The petitioner advertised a post in the newspaper for service in his Rajindra Pollution Centre, Chandigarh. The complainant being in great need of work, contacted him, who came to her place at Jind and offered her job on a salary of Rs.7000/- per month apart from accommodation at Chandigarh, which was accepted by the complainant. It is further alleged that petitioner stayed back at Jind and allured the complainant that since he is unmarried, she can live with him as his Crl.Misc.No.15635-M of 2008 -2- wife with whom he will marry and also look after her children. It is further alleged that petitioner deceitfully made physical relations with her repeatedly and also promised that he will marry her and give her appointment letter for the job. It is further alleged that complainant was taken to House No.449, Sector 19, Panchkula where she met Giano Devi, who posed herself as tenant. But in fact she is the wife of petitioner, who had helped him in committing illegal act with her. It was further alleged that subsequently, petitioner refused to marry her and in this manner, he has sexually exploited and raped her on the false assurance of marriage and giving her job. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that all the allegations of allurement for marriage and rape are false. In fact, the complainant, an aged lady having two children, is a consenting party. I have heard the counsel for the parties. The allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, therefore, the present petition is dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 9.7.2008 Judge Meenu Crl.Misc.No.15635-M of 2008 -3-