Charanjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 2010

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charanjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Criminal Misc. No. 26883-M of 2009

DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 25, 2010

CHARANJIT SINGH

....... PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB

.... RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

PRESENT: Mr. APS Deol, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. DB Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Rajni
Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. .

AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

This petition under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for bail in FIR No.130 dated
24.8.2008 under Sections 376, 406, 494, 420, 465, 468, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, City
Ferozepur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Section 376, Indian Penal Code, would not be made out in so
much as the petitioner got married to the complainant, though it was second marriage. At the most, it would
be voidable/void marriage and of offence under Section 494, Indian Penal Code. For commission of an
offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code, the ingredients as required under Section 375 (fourthly) would
not be Criminal Misc. No. 26883-M of 2009 2 made out. Section 375 (fourthly) requires an intercourse with a
woman with her consent when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given
because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is, at the most, a case of bigamy. The petitioner projected himself
as Charanjit Singh and got married to the complainant. A case of bigamy cannot be treated as a case of rape.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State has confirmed the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since
29.9.2009. Investigation has already been concluded and the challan has been filed. Considering the
contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, without giving any observations on the facts of
the case, and also considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for 10 months and investigation
has been concluded, the petition is allowed.

Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Ferozepur. January 25, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1248375/ 1