Consent in relationships involving married individuals can negate claims of sexual offense based on false promises of marriage, impacting the viability of prosecution under relevant laws.

JUDGMENT

Poonam S. Bamba, J. This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail moved on behalf of the petitioner in case FIR No. 475/2022 dated 13.07.2022, under Sections 376/506 IPC, PS Desh Bandhu Gupta (DBG) Road.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant. It is further submitted that the petitioner and the complainant/prosecutrix knew each other since 2019 being the employees of Jamia Milia Islamia University and were in consensual relationship; whatsapp chat exchanged between them clearly shows the relationship they shared.

2.1. It is also submitted that the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 2 were very well aware that both of them were already married and as such, there was no occasion for the petitioner to seek sexual favour from the respondent no. 2 on false promise of marriage. However, the respondent no. 2 started making unreasonable demands from the petitioner under the garb of their relationship; and ultimately on 13.04.2022, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2, according to which, the petitioner had to purchase a flat amounting to Rs.6-6.5 lakhs in Jamia Nagar for the complainant/prosecutrix, however she started demanding marital status, on which disputes arose between them. The prosecutrix then threatened him with dire consequences.

2.2. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a permanent employee of the Jamia Milia Islamia University and is a permanent resident of Delhi at the given address and there are no chances of his absconding.

2.3. It is also submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedents.

2.4. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to comply with any condition as may be imposed by this Court.

2.5. Mr. Salman Khurshid, Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that in view of above facts, the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail and placed reliance upon the judgments of Kerala High Court dated 22.06.2022 in Bail Appl. No. 3475 of 2022 titled as Vijay Babu vs. State of Kerala and that of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 06.07.2022 in SLP (Crl.) No. 5986/2022 preferred by the prosecutrix against the said order titled as `XXX vs. Vijay Babu & Ors., and judgments of Apex court (1) dated 21.08.2019 Criminal Appeal No. 1165 of 2019 titled as Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.; (2) judgment dated 27.06.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.(s) 442/2022 titled as Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. and (3) judgment dated 01.03.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2021 titled as Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr..

3. On the other hand, Ld. Prosecutor strongly opposed this bail application submitting that the petitioner has been charged with rape and intimidation. The petitioner repeatedly raped the prosecutrix by extending false promise of marriage, although, he had no intention to marry her. When the prosecutrix requested the petitioner to marry her, he started extending threats to her and blackmailing her. On being threatened by the petitioner that he will release their intimate video, the prosecutrix took a drastic step of consuming sleeping pills and attempted suicide, due to which she remained admitted in hospital from 19.05.2022 to 21.05.2022.

3.1. Ld. Prosecutor further submitted that the investigation in the matter is at initial stage and the petitioner is deliberately not joining investigation and is evading arrest. His custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth relevant facts. Hence, his application for anticipatory bail deserves dismissal.

4. I have heard submissions made on behalf of both the sides and have duly considered the material on record.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner is aged about 35 years and the prosecutrix is about 34 years old; both were working in Jamia Milia Islamia University and came to know each other in the year 2019. The prosecutrix in her complaint has herself stated that