The court's refusal of bail reinforces that serious allegations of sexual offences require thorough examination at trial, negating claims of consensual relations based on prior friendships or financial interactions.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application seeking regular bail in a sexual offence case - Allegations of spiking drink, rape, and threats regarding a video - Grant of bail denied as allegations of a serious nature were established, and the relationships were not consensual according to prosecutrix's statements. (Paras 2, 7, 10, 12)

(B) Burden of proof - It is the responsibility of the prosecution to establish the credibility of the victim's statements, and a delay in FIR registration is not necessarily detrimental to the prosecution case in sexual offenses. (Paras 8, 11)

(C) Consensual relationship defense - Merely showing a friendly relationship or monetary transfers does not negate the seriousness of the allegations if corroborated by the testimony of the victim. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The prosecutrix alleged she was raped after being given a spiked drink by the appellant, who claimed to want to marry her. The FIR was registered over a year later, with records detailing the timeline of events.

Findings of Court:
The court held that serious allegations necessitate a detailed examination at trial; granting bail was not warranted due to the gravity of the accusations.

Issues: The primary issues included the nature of consent, the impact of the delay in FIR registration, and the credibility of the victim’s prior complaints.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the nature of the relationship and the timing of the FIR should be adjudicated in trial, thus denying bail based on the seriousness of the charges and evidence presented.

Result: Bail application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. allegations of rape based on the complaint. (Para 1 , 2)
2. defense claims false implications and consensual relationship. (Para 4)
3. prosecution argues about the gravity of the allegations. (Para 6)
4. delay in fir not always fatal to prosecution. (Para 7 , 8)
5. testimony and credibility issues to be resolved at trial. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
6. regular bail denied due to lack of merits. (Para 12)
7. no opinion on merits stated. (Para 13)

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. This petition is filed by petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail in FIR No. 237/2020 under Sections 328/509/376/354/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Rajinder Nagar, Delhi.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 10.11.2020, the present FIR was registered on the complaint of the prosecutrix alleging that she had come to Delhi to prepare for UPSC Civil Services Examinations, and was staying for the said purpose at Rajinder Nagar. The prosecutrix met the petitioner who was also a UPSC aspirant. It is alleged that on 19.9.2019 the petitioner took her to his room at 9/11, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi and served her cold drink, and after consuming the same, she felt unconsciousness and it is alleged that petitioner raped her. It is further alleged that when the prosecutrix regained her consciousness, she felt pain in her private parts, and on being asked by the petitioner as to what had happened, the petitioner told her that he would marry her. It is further alleged that after sometime the prosecutrix got pregnant and the petitioner asked her to terminate the pregnancy, and also threatened her that he had made video of the act, and if the prosecutrix would complaint to the police he would make the video viral. It is alleged that on the pretext of making video viral, the petitioner made further physical relations with her.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State, and learned counsel for the prosecutrix/complainant.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated, and the prosecutrix is a matured lady preparing for the UPSC Examination, and was well aware about the consequences of her acts. It is further submitted that relations were consensual in nature, and the present FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix just to extort and harass the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner had transferred money to the tune of Rs.2 lacs in the account of the prosecutrix to help her financially on her request, which can be verified from the bank account. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix has filed false cases against other persons also. It is further submitted that it is highly improbable that by drinking same cold drink, the prosecutrix became unconscious and nothing happened to the petitioner. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner had made up his mind to marry the prosecutrix out of love and friendship but after some time he became fishy and enquired about the character of the prosecutrix and came to know about her murky background, and also that the prosecutrix is habitual in making false criminal complaints against persons who do not bow to her extortion demands. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix has got registered the FIR bearing no. 01/2018 under Section 376(2)(i)(M)/506 IPC against Sanket Rajesh Kambe registered at P.S.Mautizapur (Gramin), Akola, Maharashtra. It is further submitted that prosecutrix has also lodged a vindictive complaint against four teachers under Sections 376/377/417/504/506 IPC read with Section 65/67 IT Act when she was caught cheating in Examination and the prosecutrix has also filed a complaint against the police officer under Section 294/506 IPC. It is further submitted that when the petitioner realized that prosecutrix had interest in getting the money from him, then the petitioner filed complaints to National Comm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document