Consensual sexual relations based on the assurance of marriage do not amount to rape, and thus, the accused is entitled to bail.

ORDER

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 130/2021, Police Station Gogameri, District Hanumangarh, registered for the offences under Sections 376(2)(N) and 450 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the prosecutrix "S" is a 28 years old widow woman having two children; that admittedly, as per prosecution itself, consensual relations were established between the accused-petitioner and the prosecutrix on the assurance of marriage; that when the accused-petitioner denies to marry the prosecutrix, the present FIR has been lodged for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC; that the accused-petitioner has wrongly been implicated in this case; and that trial will take time, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner and stated that the prosecutrix has supported the story of the prosecution in her statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C, therefore, benefit of bail may not be granted to the accused-petitioner.

5. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1443/2018, decided on 22.11.2018 has held that the consensual sex will not amount to rape. Similarly, while following the judgment in the case of Dhruvaram (supra), this Court in the case of Sachin Sukhla Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2092/2019, decided on 05.01.2021) has also observed that the consensual intercourse will not amount to rape. Taking into consideration the observations and ratio in both the above-said judgments, this Court is of the opinion that the present bail application preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioner deserves to be allowed.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly as per the evidence as available on the record of the case, consensual sexual relations were established between the accused-petitioner and the prosecutrix on the basis of assurance of marriage; that as per the ratio laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court and this Court, in the above cited cases, benefit of bail deserves to be granted to the accused-petitioner; and that trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

7. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner, Suresh Kumar S/o Omprakash, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 130/2021, Police Station Gogameri, District Hanumangarh, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.