Back
DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Suresh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
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 ferve
Consensual sexual relations based on the assurance of marriage do not amount to rape, and thus, the accused is entitled to bail.
The seriousness of the prosecutrix's suicide attempt as evidence of the seriousness of the relationship influenced the court's decision to deny the bail application.
The court held that a consensual relationship between a minor and an adult, in the absence of force, may warrant bail, emphasizing the importance of context and the nature of the relationship.
The court determined that the relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix was consensual, which influenced the decision to grant bail despite the prosecutrix being a minor.
The court emphasized that the nature of the relationship between the accused and the minor was consensual, impacting the decision to grant bail despite the legal implications of the minor's consent.
Consent in relationships does not equate to rape unless proven that the promise of marriage was made with no intention to fulfill it; bail is the rule and imprisonment the exception.
The court emphasized the distinction between consensual relationships and allegations of rape, ruling that mere allegations without evidence of coercion do not suffice for criminal proceedings.
Consent in adult relationships is pivotal; allegations of immoral conduct do not equate to criminal offenses under the specified section of the IPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
