Punjab and Haryana High Court denies relief to cop accused of rape by live-in partner, rejects their compromise

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a police officer accused of rape by his live-in partner..Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan also refused to accept the compromise between the couple, observing that same would be against public policy as both the man and the woman were already married to other people."The Court cannot stamp a live-in relationship inter se two married persons by granting them the concession of pre-arrest bail by way of accepting the present appeal. Polygamy is not permitted under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and permitting such a relationship by allowing the appeal and granting the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the appellant would give a wrong signal to the society, as such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant cannot re-agitate the matter by filing the second appeal on the strength of the said compromise deed." it said.Pertinently, the first appeal for bail in the case also involving provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 had been turned down by the Court on merits in February this year..The trial court on January 11 had refused to grant pre-arrest bail to the accused. After his first appeal was dismissed on merits by the High Court, he moved the present appeal on the ground that the matter had been compromised.However, the counsel for the State opposed the appeal, citing the seriousness of the allegations against the accused. It was also submitted that the accused was a police officer and already married..On reviewing the facts and circumstances outlined in the previous order, the Court noted that both the accused and the complainant are married to their respective spouses.It also looked into the compromise deed of the couple and found that it mentioned that the complainant had started a live-in relationship with the accused with her consent and without any pressure as she was not happy with her marriage. "It is further alleged that both the parties are having live-in relationship since April 2021 and they got executed a live-in relationship deed on 01.04.2021 and since then they are contentiously living in the said relationship," the order noted,.Taking note of the fact that the earlier appeal for anticipatory bail already stood dismissed on merits, the Court refused to accept the compromise deed said. "Secondly, in case the said compromise is accepted, this would be against the public policy, since both, the appellant and respondent No. 2- complainant are married to their respective spouses.".It further relied on the Supreme Court decision in Indra Sarma v KV Sarma where in the context of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it was observed, "If the relationship between the appellant (unmarried woman) and respondent (married man) is considered as a relationship in the nature of marriage, with the sanction of the Court, grave injustice would happen to the legally wedded wife and the children who oppose the relationship.".Advocate SS Sahu appeared for the accused.Deputy Advocate General Amrik Singh Narwal represented the State of Haryana.Advocate Shelja Sharma appeared for the complainant.