A promise of marriage does not constitute rape if the relationship was consensual and there is no evidence of a false promise from the beginning.

ORDER

1. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.68/2021 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Baran for the offence under Section(s) 376, 376(1) and 376(2)(n) of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the FIR, no offence under Section 376 is made out inasmuch as the petitioner aged 24 years and the prosecutrix aged 28 years, a teacher/choreographer, were in relationship for more than last four years. He submits that as per the allegation in the FIR, on the assurance extended by the petitioner to marry her, consensual sex took place between them. He submits that the FIR is bereft of any allegation that from very inception, promise of marriage was false. Relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India incases of Criminal Appeal No.1165/2019 (@SLP (Crl.) No.2712/2019): Pramod Suryabhan Panwar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., decided on 21.08.2019 and Criminal Appeal No.233/2021 (Arising our of SLP (Crl.) No.11218/2019): Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., decided on 01.03.2021, learned counsel submitted that since no case is made out against the petitioner, he may be extended benefit of pre-arrest bail.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.

4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

5. A perusal of the FIR and statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. reveals that physical relationship was established between the parties on the basis of promise of marriage extended by the petitioner although, the prosecutrix was sceptical of the prospect of their marriage on account of family resistence. Her statement also reveals that the petitioner endeavoured that their family members agree for their marriage. Parents and other family members of the petitioner have also visited the family of the prosecutrix twice for this purpose. The FIR has been lodged when despite promise for their marriage at Delhi, the petitioner did not reach Jaipur for three days from where they were to meet and proceed to Delhi together. The material available in the case diary in the shape of statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reveals that both were residing together since long as husband and wife. In view of the aforesaid as also in view of maturity level and social status of the parties in the back drop of law laid down in cases of Pramod Suryabhan Panwar (supra) and Sonu @ Subhash Kumar (supra), this Court is inclined to extend the petitioner benefit of pre-arrest bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner in connection with aforementioned FIR registered at concerned Police Station, the petitioner Rishabh Nagar Son Of Shri Purshottam Nagar shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions :-

(i). that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and

(iii). that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.