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 intention of being adhered to.

JUDGMENT

1. The present application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") is filed seeking regular bail in FIR No. 566/2022, dated 24.08.2022, under Sections 376/509/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"), at Police Station Palam Village.

2. The FIR was registered on a complaint by the prosecutrix alleging that the applicant raped her on the pretext of marriage.

3. It is alleged that the applicant was looking for a job. He met the prosecutrix during his visit to her office, situated at Chamber No. 5, Pusa Road, Rajendra Place, where she was working as a HR Manager. The two started meeting each other frequently and this culminated into a relationship between them. They also established physical relations with each other. The applicant promised to marry the prosecutrix and in the pretext of the same, also established forceful physical relations with her. During the course of relationship, the prosecutrix also got pregnant and was forced to take abortion pills by the applicant.

4. Later, the applicant refused to marry the prosecutrix and established relations with other women, which led to registration of the FIR by the prosecutrix. The applicant was arrested on 24.08.2022.

5. The applicant had filed a bail application no. 2312/2022 before the learned ASJ, Dwarka Court, New Delhi, which was dismissed by order dated 29.08.2022.

6. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

7. He submits that, admittedly, the prosecutrix was in a physical relationship with the applicant for more than six months, prior to filing of the complaint.

8. He submits that the place of incident has been alleged to be one Hotel in Dwarka which was booked by the prosecutrix herself. The register maintained by the Hotel shows the checkout time at 08:15 p.m. whereas the allegation has been made that the prosecutrix was raped during the whole night.

9. The prosecutrix has also refused any internal examination.

10. Learned Counsel for the prosecutrix states that the applicant promised to marry her and also introduced her to his friends and relatives as his wife and in the pretext of the same, established forceful physical relations with her. During the course of relationship, she also got pregnant and was forced to take abortion pills by the applicant.

11. He further submits that the conduct of IO (Ms. Laxmi), in the present case, is very dubious as she constantly favours the applicant and has not conducted extensive investigation and has also not revealed the whatsapp chat between the prosecutrix and the applicant because of which the real truth could not be articulated.

12. Learned Counsel for the prosecutrix further submits that the prosecutrix is also getting life threats and the applicant has also threatened to throw acid on her. So, there is a high probability that there is a threat to the life of the prosecutrix if the applicant is released on bail.

Conclusion

13. The investigation, in the present case, is complete and the chargesheet has already been filed.

14. The statement of the prosecutrix was record by the learned Trial Court on 12.12.2022.

15. She has admitted that she had gone to the hotel room on the date of incident, that is, 08.05.2022, on her own albeit on continued insistence by the accused.

16. At this stage, it appears that the complaint was given initially to the National Commission for Women on 14.06.2022 and, thereafter, to the Police on 24.08.2022 only when the applicant/accused blocked the mobile phone of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has also stated that she did not pursue the complaint when the applicant/accused promised to marry her and when he again started avoiding her and refused to marry, the complaint was ultimately given to PS Palam Village.

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., SLP(Crl.) No. 2712 of 2019; (2019) 9 SCC 608, by its judgement dated 21.08.2019 had summ