In CRM-M-27176-2022-PUNJ HC- P&H HC grants pre-arrest bail to man accused of raping woman working in Court, says victim staying quiet for long time would make out case for bail Justice Anoop Chitkara [28-06-2022]

Read Order: Harmanjot Singh v. State of Punjab 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, July 1, 2022: While dealing with an anticipatory bail petition wherein the petitioner was accused of committing several acts of rape upon a woman working in Court, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed the application on the ground that the petitioner was a first-time offender, and one of the relevant factors was to provide an opportunity to course-correct.

Also, the bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara added, “The victim is an employee, matured lady and working in the Court and she would know the consequences and legal remedies. Instead her keeping quiet for such a long time would make out a case for bail to the petitioner. There is no need to comment further, it might prejudice the case of the prosecution.”

Apprehending his arrest in an FIR registered under Section 376 IPC, the petitioner came up before the High Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for seeking anticipatory bail. 

Essentially, in this case, the victim who was working in the Court came in contact with the petitioner who developed a friendly relationship with the victim. The petitioner took her to his house and tried to establish a sexual relationship with her but she refused to indulge in such an act. Thus, the petitioner played Anand Karaj Sahib from his mobile phone and placed the Gutka Sahib and took laavaan phere with the victim. He also applied vermillion on the parting line of the victim’s head. 

After having performed this marriage, the petitioner indulged in sexual intercourse with the victim. Thereafter, the petitioner forcefully kept the victim in confinement and committed rape upon her on several occasions leading to multiple bruises on her body. He also threatened her to not discuss the relationship with anyone and blackmailed her by leaking her obscene pictures to her father. 

The Counsel for the petitioner contended that the custodial investigation of the petitioner would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family. On the other hand, the State Counsel opposed the bail plea. 

After having considered the factual situation, the Court observed,

“The victim is an employee, matured lady and working in the Court and she would know the consequences and legal remedies. Instead her keeping quiet for such a long time would make out a case for bail to the petitioner. There is no need to comment further, it might prejudice the case of the prosecution.”

Further, the Court observed that the petitioner was a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Also, Justice Chitkara asserted that the possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. 

Thus, without commenting on the case’s merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the Court was of the opinion that the petitioner made out a case for bail, subject to the terms and conditions, imposed over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in Chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973. 

Accordingly, while imposing certain conditions, the Court allowed the petition.