Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jaspreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 8 April, 2010

Author: Nirmaljit Kaur

Bench: Nirmaljit Kaur

Crl. Misc. No.M-2975 of 2010                                          1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH.


                                           Crl. Misc. No.M-2975 of 2010
                                           Date of Decision: 08.04.2010


Jaspreet Singh
                                                    ....Petitioner

            Versus


State of Punjab

                                                   ...Respondent

CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

Present:-   Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab
            for the respondent-State.

                         *****

          1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
             allowed to see the judgment ?
          2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
          3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
             Digest ?
          **
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)

This is a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.365 dated 27.12.2007 under Sections 363-A, 366, 376, 506 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, District Jalandhar.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was married to the prosecutrix. The marriage certificate has been placed on record as P-2. Subsequently, the petitioner along with the prosecutrix had also filed Crl. Misc. No.M-43568 of 2007, seeking protection to their life and liberty as they had married against the wishes of their respective parents. Subsequently, the prosecutrix left the petitioner Crl. Misc. No.M-2975 of 2010 2 and started residing with her parents. Presently, it is confirmed that she has gone to CANADA. Attention of this Court has been invited to definition of Section 375 of Indian Penal Code. Exception to the said definition reads as under :-

"375. Rape exception : Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape."

Admittedly, the prosecutrix was more than 15 years and she was married to the present petitioner.

In view of the above, bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar.

(NIRMALJIT KAUR) Judge 08.04.2010 gurpreet