RAHUL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case has been taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing.

(2.) This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved by petitioner-Rahul seeking regular bail in case FIR No.74 dated 19.03.2020 under Sections 328, 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Women Police Station NIT, Faridabad, District Faridabad.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the allegations levelled in the FIR are totally concocted, false and frivolous and there is no iota of truth therein. He further urged that prosecutrix and petitioner are major and they were in love relation and during their courtship, petitioner came to know that prosecutrix is in active relation with other persons namely Rahul Verma and Neeraj. He further urged during conversation with above said Neeraj, petitioner had come to know about illegal designs of prosecutrix as she was in relation with petitioner just to extract money from him. He also urged that later on it had come to the notice of petitioner that prosecutrix had eloped with above said Neeraj and she is married to him (Neeraj). He further urged that prosecutrix never stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she was raped by the petitioner and, in fact, she stated therein that she was in relation with petitioner and further said stand has been reiterated by her (prosecutrix) during her cross-examination as PW-5. He further urged that during the course of her testimony, prosecutrix (PW-5) has also stated that from 29.10.2019 till registration of FIR, petitioner had developed physical relations with her about 5-6 times and she did not disclose that fact to the Police as well as to the Magistrate. He further urged that even otherwise consensual physical relationship has been given colour of offence of rape. He further urged that petitioner is in custody since 20.04.2020 and after completion of investigation, challan has already been presented in the Court. He further urged that trial has already commenced, wherein testimonies of five prosecution witnesses including that of prosecutrix (PW5) have already been recorded. He further urged that since trial of the case would take sufficient time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody further and he may be released on bail.