Sonal Sahni vs State

Hon''ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta

By this petition, the Petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No. 112/2010 u/s 376 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered at P.S.

Maurya Enclave.

The allegations as set out in the complaint are that when the Complainant was 15 years old while coming home from the school she used to meet

the Petitione towards whom she got attracted and they started meeting each other and after several months their parents came to know about their

friendship. On this, the parents of both the Petitioner and the Complainant talked with each other and it was decided that they would perform the

engagement however the marriage would be performed only after the com-plainant/prosecutrix attains the age of 18 years. They were engaged on

12th July, 2008. After the engagement, the Petitioner started visiting he house of the prosecutrix. He stated that there is no difference between the

marriage and engagement and used to pressurize her to have physical relationship. On one such incident, he brought her to meet his family

members in his house. However, on reaching the house, she found there was nobody. It is alleged that on the pretext of his love he made physical

relations with her without her consent and continued making the same thereafter. After some time she informed her parents who spoke to the

parents of the Petitioner who stated that they knew about it and since she was going to be their daughter-in-law so there was no harm. It is further

alleged that while stablishing the physical relationship, Petitioner even took Rs. 30,000/- from her which she saved from her pocket money.

Thereafter, the Petitioner stated that in case she wanted to mary him she should arrange Rs, 10 lacs from her parents. It is further allged that Rs. 5

lacs were demanded for preparing a floor in the house. There were other demands also and finally after the families met the disputes were resolved

and it was decided that the parties would sit in the first week of May to decide the date of marriage. However, thereafter the attitude of the

Petitioner changed. He took the prosecutrix to his house and established physical relations with her and threatened her and stated that she should

be ready for divorce since she would not keep her for long time. In a nutshell it is alleged that the Petitioner after the engagement established

physical relations with her and harassed mentally and physically.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that though the prosecutrix''s mother had given a complaint but she did not act for some time and

asked the SHO to keep it in abeyance as they are trying to settle the matter. The allegations as set out show that the prosecutrix was in love with

the Petitioner and thus, in view of that infatuation and young age both of them fell in love with each other. No offence u/s 376 IPC is made out as

the prosecutrix was consenting party. The Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21st August, 2010. The false allegations of rape and dowry

have been leveled against the Petitioner because the Petitioner''s family was not agreeing to marriage because the prosecutrix had not attained the

age of 18 years. The petitioner is not involved in any other case and he has no criminal antecedents.

On the other hand, learned APP for the State contends that the allegations against the Petitioner are serious in nature. The Petitioner not only

physically exploited the prosecutrix but also harassed her mentally after establishing physical relations. He started demanding dowry for the

purpose of marriage and thus bail should not be granted to him.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The allegations as set out in the complaint show that the prosecutrix

infatuated towards the Petitioner and because of their love for each other they got engaged at a young age. After the engagement, the Petitioner

had physical relations with her. At the time when the physical relations were established the prosecutrix was nearly 16 years of age. The issue

whether the relations were pursuant to consent of the prosecutrix or under a threat would have to be examined in the course of the trial. The

Petitioner is in custody for nearly one year. The trial is likely to take some time.

I find it a fit case to grant bail to the Petitioner. It is, therefore, directed that the Petitioner be released on his furnishing a personal bond in the

sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Petition disposed of. Order Dasti.