Back
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Gathum China Demudu – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Ravi Cheemalapati, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 & 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking bail, by the petitioner/sole accused in Cr. No. 129 of 2022 of Devarapalli Station, Visakhapatnam District (present Anakapalli District), registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused on the pretext of marrying sexually exploited the de facto complainant for the last seven (07) years and on 26.05.2022, the accused took the de facto complainant to his house and had sexual intercourse with her and on 27.05.2022 at 6.00 a.m. he went out and did not return. Later, the accused, phoned up and intimated that he don't marry her. Basing on the complaint of the de facto complainant, the present crime has been registered.
3. Heard Sri Dasari SVVS Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Sri Dasari SVVS Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration, contends that a glance at the report would make it clear that there has
Consensual relationship and prolonged judicial custody can be considered in granting bail, especially when imposing conditions to address prosecution's apprehensions.
When a complainant willingly stays and has a relationship, if the relationship does not work out, it cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offense under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC.
Consensual sex between adults does not amount to rape under Section 376 of IPC.
The seriousness of the offence and prima facie evidence from the FIR are crucial factors in deciding on anticipatory bail.
The court emphasized that a relationship based on mutual consent negates accusations of non-consensual sex unless fraudulent intent is proven.
Consensual sexual relations based on the assurance of marriage do not amount to rape, and thus, the accused is entitled to bail.
Consent given under a false promise to marry must be proven as knowingly false from the outset for an accusation of rape to succeed; consensual relationships later turning sour do not invoke criminal....
Misconception of fact – Merely because physical relations were established on a promise to marry, it would not, by itself, amount to rape.
The consensual nature of a relationship and the potential impact of granting anticipatory bail on the investigation were central to the court's decision.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
