Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Kailash Gambhir, J.
Rohit Chauhan - Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi - Resopndent
Bail Application No. 311 of 2013
Decided On : 25-05-2013
Anticipatory Bail - Offence under Sections 376/506/328 IPC - [Sections 376, 506, 328 IPC] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to consent, false promise of marriage, and the responsibility of both parties in intimate relationships. The court emphasized the need for evidence to prove the accused's lack of intention to marry the victim and the distinction between rape and consensual sex. The judgment highlighted the increase in rape cases and cautioned against trivializing the gravity of the offense.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail for the offense under Sections 376/506/328 IPC. The prosecutrix alleges that the petitioner had physical intimacy with her on the promise of marriage, threatened her, and administered drugs to prevent conception. The petitioner claims consensual relationship and accuses the prosecutrix of extortion.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, considering the consensual nature of the relationship, the solemnization of marriage, and the delay in lodging the complaint. The court also directed the petitioner and his family members not to intimidate the prosecutrix.
Issues: Consent, false promise of marriage, delay in lodging complaint, solemnization of marriage, and responsibility of both parties in intimate relationships.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for evidence to prove lack of intention to marry, cautioned against trivializing the gravity of rape cases, and considered the delay in lodging the complaint as a factor in granting anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner and directed him and his family members not to visit or intimidate the prosecutrix.
Key Points: - The court emphasized the need for evidence to prove lack of intention to marry in cases involving false promise of marriage (!) (!) . - The judgment highlighted the clear distinction between rape and consensual sex, stressing the importance of examining the intentions of both parties (!) (!) . - The court granted anticipatory bail considering the consensual nature of the relationship and the delay in lodging the complaint (!) (!) . - It was noted that rape cases require careful examination to ensure that the gravity of the offense is not trivialized (!) (!) . - The court directed that the petitioner and his family members shall not visit or intimidate the prosecutrix (!) .
Kailash Gambhir, J.
1. By this application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail.
2. The petitioner herein is accused of committing the offence under Sections 376/506/328 IPC in FIR No. 39/2013 registered with PS Rani Bagh. As per the prosecuterix, Ms.Rupali Thakur it is alleged that she had an affair with the petitioner, RohitChauhan for the last 3 years and during this period the petitioner had physical intimacy with her on the promise that he would marry her.
3. As per the complainant, who is present in court, the petitioner took the complainant to his house at Rishhi Nagar, Rani Baghon 14.2.2010 on the pretext of introducing her to his mother, but since there was no one present in his house, he forcibly had physical relationship with her. It is also the case of the prosecutrix, that when she tried to shout, then the petitioner daunted her that he would kill her and defame her and at the same time he asked her not to worry as he loved her and would marry her butif in case she discloses the said relationship to anyone then the petitioner would harm himself physically. It is also the case of the prosecutrix that the petitioner also gave certain pills to her so that she would not conceive. It is further alleged by the prosecutrix that the petitioner also threatened to kill her family members and to show her obscene videos to her parents and upload the same on ‘YouTube’, if she dared to refuse to maintain physical relations with him. It is also the case of the prosecuterix, that on 9.7.2012, the petitioner administered some drug in her cold drink, which she drank and again was forced to have physical relations with him. It is also the case of the prosecuterix that on 13.7.2012, she filed a complaint at Police Station, Shalimar Bagh which was later transferred to Police Station Rani Bagh, where the petitioner and his family members were called by the police and they gave assurance that they will arrange the marriage of the petitioner with the complainant only if the complainant withdraws the said complaint. As per the complainant, the marriage was solemnized at AryaSamajMandir, HaritVihar, Burari, Delhi on 10th August, 2012, where the family of the petitioner i.e. his mother Kiran, brother Kitty, cousin brother Vishnu Yadav, petitioner’s MassiPoonam, petitioner’s other Massa and Massi were all present. It is also the case of the prosecutrix that after the solemnisation of the said marriage, the petitioner did not take her to his house even for a day and rather after two days of marriage, the petitioner and his family members took the prosecutrix to AryaSamajMandir, beat her and forcibly took her signatures on one paper for dissolving the said marriage. It is also the case of the prosecuterix that after the marriage, the petitioner and his family members visited her locality several times and abused her besides creating nuisance outside her house. It is also the case of the prosecuterix that her sister was also threatened whenever she used to go to her school. It is also the case of the prosecuterix that on 3.11.2012, she again made a complaint against the petitioner and his family members in Police Station Shalimar Bagh, and when they were called by the police, they had demanded for one flat and Rs. 20 lakhs if the prosecutrix wanted to live with them. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by the prosecutrix with the Crime Against Women Cell, Maurya Enclave, so as to pursue her complaint dated 13th July, 2012.
4. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. B.S. Rana, Advocate, submits that the petitioner was abducted from his residence on 9.8.2012 at about 9 p.m. and he was severely beaten by the police in the police station and was taken to AryaSamajMandir, HaritVihar, Burari, Delhi, where he was forced to solemnize the aforesaid marriage with the complainant. To support his arguments counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on some of the photographs placed on record w
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
