The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to MLA Harmeet Singh Pathanmajra in a rape case registered at a police station in Patiala in September last year. He has been asked to report to the police station concerned twice a month and not try to contact the complainant, her relatives, or witness directly or indirectly. “The violation of any of the conditions shall entitle the police to seek cancellation of this bail,” the Bench ruled.
As per the allegations, the complainant—a divorced housewife having one daughter—came in contact with the petitioner in 2013-14. Politically active at that time also, he proposed to her and maintained physical relations on the assurance of getting married till 2019. Later, their marriage was solemnised on August 14, 2021, on the false pretext that he was a divorcee.
After the marriage, the complainant purportedly resided in the house of petitioner’s maternal uncle’s son. It was only in March, 2022, on seeing the affidavit filed by the petitioner for contesting election to the state legislature, that she became aware of his subsisting marriage, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya’s Bench was told.
“In these facts all this while, when the complainant concededly had physical relationship with the petitioner for about a decade from 2013-14 onwards, it becomes debatable whether she could remain oblivious of his existing marital ties; and could it be said this protracted relationship was without her consent, or that the consent had been given because she believed herself to be lawfully married wife,” the Bench observed among other things.
The petitioner was represented by senior advocate Randeep Singh Rai, along with counsel Anurag Arora, Deepinder Brar, Arjun Rai, Sukriti Rai, Farhad Kohli and Jasmeet Singh Kang. The Bench added there was no denying the fact that the petitioner previously absconded from the process of law and slipped out of the country. Nevertheless, he returned and was arrested on March 24. Prior thereto, he was declared a proclaimed person also and further proceedings in that regard were pending. His being absconder could itself not be a ground to decline bail in the facts of this case.
Similarly, pendency of other FIRs would also not be a sufficient ground to detain him in custody. One of the FIRs was related to the “instant case” only when he allegedly escaped from custody at Karnal. The second FIR under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, was registered thereafter while he was absconding.
“Even otherwise, the petitioner’s entitlement to bail is to be decided on the facts of the case at hand. Additionally, the allegations that the petitioner and his agents are threatening and pressurising the complaint or her brother, have not been substantiated even prima facie; no complaint in that regard has been registered either. Accordingly, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his submitting bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate, provided his custody is not needed in any other case,” Justice Dahiya asserted. The Bench added the release would be subject to surrendering his passport to the trial court.
