In CRM-M-26105-2022-PUNJ HC- P&H HC grants anticipatory bail to man who resiled from his promise to marry his live-in-partner after considering that he had no criminal antecedents Justice Anoop Chitkara [23-06-2022]

Read Order: Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab

LE Correspondent

Chandigarh, June 24, 2022: While dealing with a petition for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner who was accused of resiling from his promise to marry his live-in-partner, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed the petition on the ground that the petitioner was a first time offender. 

Also, while dealing with the petition, the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara remarked, “Even the victim was not a child or unmarried, who would not know the  consequences of establishing live-in-relationship in traditional and orthodox societies. At this stage, to blame the petitioner for all the sexual intercourses and on that ground not to accept his prayer would be stretching too far. In paragraph 6 of the bail petition, the petitioner denies any sexual relations.” 

The petitioner, apprehending arrest in an FIR registered against him under Sections 420/376 IPC came up before the High Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking the grant of anticipatory bail to him. 

Essentially, the complainant who is a divorcee alleged that while going to pay obeisance at holy place, she came in contact with the petitioner-Jaswinder Singh who claimed himself to be divorced and proposed to establish a live-in-relationship to which the complainant agreed. 

In a nutshell, the allegations against the petitioner were that he resiles from his promise to marry the complainant. 

After considering the facts of the case, the Court observed that even the victim was not a child or unmarried, who would not know the 

consequences of establishing live-in-relationship in traditional and orthodox societies and thus, Justice opined, 

“At this stage, to blame the petitioner for all the sexual intercourses and on that ground not to accept his prayer would be stretching too far.”

The petitioner, in his petition, denied having a physical relationship with the complainant. 

Further, the Court observed that the allegations did not justify pretrial incarceration of the petitioner who was a  first offender, and that one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. 

Thus, the Court allowed the petition.