The main legal point established is the requirement for supervening circumstances to justify the cancellation of bail and the need to establish coercion or deceit in cases of sexual intercourse based on false promise of marriage.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - This petition has been filed under Section 439(2) CrPC for cancellation of bail granted vide order dated 18.08.2021 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts in FIR No.199 of 2021 dated 04.05.2021 registered at Police Station Laxmi Nagar for offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The facts leading to the instant case are stated as follows:-

i. The Petitioner is a 27-year-old woman who met Respondent No.2, whose bail is being sought to be cancelled in the instant application, in the year 2015 at Invertis University wherein she was pursuing her B.Com.

ii. The Petitioner fell in love with Respondent No.2 and they both were in a relationship.

iii. On 05.07.2018, when the Petitioner reached Delhi at 3:30 PM, the Respondent No.2 said to her that he was hungry and they should go to her room to have food, as well as to rest and talk. At about 4:30 PM, Respondent No.2 reached the Petitioner's flat and, allegedly, at 5:00 PM, he started touching her. The Petitioner questioned Respondent No.2's actions, and in response to the same, Respondent No.2 stated that he loved the Petitioner, intended to marry her and that after the marriage they would be in such physical relations. Despite the Petitioner refusing the advances of Respondent No.2, it is alleged that Respondent No.2 forcefully had sexual intercourse with the Petitioner.

iv. After the sexual intercourse, when the Petitioner started crying and told Respondent No.2 that she would file a police complaint against him, Respondent No.2 threatened to kill her and her mother if she filed a complaint or if she informed anyone.

v. Respondent No.2 told the Petitioner that he loved her and he would marry her, and that if she filed a police complaint, she would end up ruining her life as well as jeopardise their relationship. He further said that he would never leave her.

vi. During the course of the relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2, it has been stated that Respondent No.2 visited her flat many times, and despite her refusal, he would have sexual intercourse with her. It is also stated that whenever the Petitioner would bring up the prospect of marriage, Respondent No.2 would counter the same with some excuse or the other.

vii. On 13.02.2020, Respondent No.2 visited the flat of the Petitioner around 7:00 PM and had sexual intercourse with her against her wishes, and on 14.02.2020, Respondent No.2 left the flat informing the Petitioner that he would be going home in order to speak to his family about their marriage.

viii. Thereafter, whenever the Petitioner sought to speak to Respondent No.2 over the phone regarding their marriage, he would deflect the topic by making excuses.

ix. It is stated that the Petitioner's father had passed away in 2018 and that the Petitioner's mother was a housewife who lived alone. Due to this, the Petitioner out of fear could never inform her family about what was taking place in her personal life and how she was emotionally devastated as a result of Respondent No.2's false promises.

x. It has been alleged by the Petitioner that Respondent No.2 has completely ruined the petitioner's life because of his false promise to marry on the basis of which he had sexual intercourse with her multiple times.

xi. On the said complaint, the instant FIR was registered against Respondent No.2 herein.

xii. On 03.06.2021, Respondent No.2 was arrested by the concerned I.O. Consequently, Respondent No.2 filed an application for regular bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 07.06.2021 and the same was rejected vide Order dated 22.06.2021. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 approached this Hon’ble Court for grant of regular bail. In the meanwhile, the Respondent No.2 also filed an application before this Hon’ble Court seeking interim bail which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.07.2021.

xiii. On 09.07.2021, Respondent No.2 filed another application for grant of regular bail