IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Sandeep Mourya - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Application No. 838 of 2021
Decided On : 22-03-2021
Bail - Section 438 Cr.P.C. - Offences under Section 376 and 328 IPC - Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in relation to FIR No.44/2021 for offences under Section 376 and 328 IPC. The prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner established a physical relationship with her on the promise of marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found contradictions in the prosecutrix's initial and subsequent versions. It observed that there was no evidence of a promise of marriage and that the consent given by the prosecutrix for the physical relationship would be decided in trial.
Issues: Consent given by the prosecutrix, promise of marriage, and establishment of physical relationship.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court referred to the legal position on consent and false promise of marriage as established in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608.
Final Decision: The Court granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions, emphasizing that the observations were only for the purpose of bail and not on the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - This application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner in FIR No.44/2021 dated 28.01.2021 registered in Police Station Hauz Khas for offences punishable under Section 376 and 328 IPC.
2. The prosecutrix gave a complaint on 28.01.2021, stating as under:
a) Her father, late Mukesh Kumar, suffered heart attack on the night of 02.01.2019 and he was taken to the Safdarjung Hospital where the petitioner herein was the duty doctor. It is stated in the FIR that during the course of the treatment, the petitioner came to the residence of the prosecutrix and gave his profile for the purpose of marriage and asked for the profile of the prosecutrix.
b) It is stated that on 09.06.2020, the petitioner called the prosecutrix to come to Yusuf Sarai/Gautam Nagar so that they can get to know each other. She stated that she reached there at about 11 AM. It is stated that the petitioner told her that since she is interested in painting and sketching he will take her to his friend's flat. It is stated that the prosecutrix objected to come with him to the flat but the petitioner stated that his friend is also a doctor. She stated that when she reached the flat of Dr. Kisan she was given some cold drink after which she does not remember anything. It is stated that when she regained consciousness she was having pain in her stomach. It is stated that when she became alright she realised that she had been raped and when she confronted the petitioner she was threatened that a video had been taken by the petitioner and would be made viral.
c) It is stated that on 17.06.2020, the petitioner called the prosecutrix to a Hotel in Green Park, Yousuf Sarai, and again raped her.
d) It is stated that on 16.09.2020, again the prosecutrix was called to a Hotel where she was raped again. It is stated in the complaint that the prosecutrix has been threatened that the video which was taken would be made viral.
e) On her complaint FIR No.44/2021 dated 28.01.2021, was registered at Police Station Hauz Khas for offences punishable under Section 376 and 328 IPC.
3. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court by filing a bail application. A Status Report was filed by the Police repeating the contents of the FIR. In the proceedings it was contended that the prosecutrix's father had suffered heart attack on 02.01.2019 and was brought to the hospital by the sister of the prosecutrix and during the said period, the sister of the prosecutrix was in constant touch with the petitioner. It is stated in the said order that the petitioner had requested the sister of the prosecutrix, who is a lab technician, to look for a job for his friend. The order records that in the month of May, 2020, the sister of the prosecutrix asked the petitioner as to whether he has married and then she requested the petitioner to find some eligible bachelor for her sister. The order records that the prosecutrix came to meet the petitioner and thereafter they established sexual relationship. The order also records that there were several instances of consensual sexual relationship and WhatsApp messages were exchanged. The bail application was rejected by an order dated 06.03.2021, on the ground that sexual relationship was established between the petitioner and the prosecutrix of the promise of marriage and therefore anticipatory bail could not be granted to the petitioner.
4. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing another application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. Notice was issued on 10.03.2021. Status report has been filed.
5. It is stated in the Status Report that during the course of the investigation material has been collected from the places where the petitioner and the prosecutrix have established sexual relationship. It has also been stated in the Status Report that the statement of the sister of the prosecutrix was recorded and it does not match with the statement of the pros
The legal principle established is that consent must involve active and reasoned deliberation, and a false promise of marriage must be given in bad faith with no intention of being adhered to at the ....
Bail can be granted when the allegations do not involve direct participation in serious crimes, and the accused demonstrates willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
Rape case – Gran of Bail - Consent of prosecutrix – Issues to be decided at Trial – No criminal antecedents of accused
Petitioner is not accused of committing rape and the fact that the petitioner has joined investigation, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Anticipatory bail under Section 438 should be granted sparingly, especially in serious offences, considering potential risks and the necessity for thorough investigation.
The legal position on 'promise to marry' in relation to consent and the 'bail not jail' rule were central to the judgment.
The main legal point established is the careful consideration of the nature of accusations, antecedents of the accused, and the possibility of tampering with witnesses in granting anticipatory bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between false promise and breach of promise, and the legal principles related to consent and misconception of fact.
The legal position when a woman complains of sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage requires active and reasoned deliberation for consent and a false promise given in bad faith with no int....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.