RANI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Smt. Rani petitioner is a woman. Surjit Singh who is lodger of the FIR is her real Masar. He is giving one version of the occurrence. So far as Rani is concerned, she is giving another version of the occurrence. She filed complaint under Section 354/452/506/120-B IPC at P.S. 'B' Division, Amritsar against Surjit Singh and his brother-in-law Harjit Singh. As per her, she along with her husband Gurbachan Singh were pesent on 3.9.98 at about 8.30 p.m. at their house. Surjit Singh entered their house and in the baithak of her house her husband had paid him Rs. 4,000/- which they were to pay on account of the purchase of tiles through him. Thereafter her husband went out to take something to take with tea. As soon as her husband went out, Surjit Singh asked her to keep Rs. 4,000/- with her and he would provide Rs. 50,000/- in her name. He asked her to keep illicit relations with him. She resented and started querelling with him and told him that he should talk senses as she was like his daughter. Surjit Singh felt that she was not a woman to succumb to any temptation, then he assaulted her and caught hold of her arm with intention to outrage her modesty. Her husband came. Surjit Singh apologised but her husband gave him beating and rebuked him that he should feel ashamed of what he had done. Her mother-in-law Sumitra Rani also came. She saw Surjit Singh being beaten by her husband.

(2.) As far as Surjit Singh concerned, he has stated in the FIR that Rani embraced him and her husband gave him push on the bed and he arranged as if he and Rani were in act of intercourse. Her husband took photographs. Intention was to blackmail him (Surjit Singh) by showing his nude photographs. Rani is his sister-in-law's daughter who was also nude. As per Surjit Singh, a sum of Rs. 1.50 lacs was also demanded or else his nude photographs will be shown to all the relatives as also on city cable.

(3.) As to whether Rani's version is correct or Surjit Singh's version is correct, that will be adjudicated by the court. It is, therefore, deemed proper that anticipatory bail should be allowed to Rani. It is, therefore, ordered that in the event of arrest, the investigating officer will call upon the petitioner to furnish bail. She shall join the investigation and shall keep joining the investigation as per the direction of the investigating officer.