IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Farjand Ali, J.
Jai Singh Alias Jaideep Rajpurohit - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2496 of 2023
Decided On : 23-01-2024
ORDER :
Farjand Ali, J.
Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2.
2. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at the instance of accused-appellant. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case |
|
| 1. | FIR Number | 192/2023 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Coat gate |
| 3. | District | Bikaner |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | -- |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 03.11.2023 |
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. As per the allegations levelled in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she submitted herself before the petitioner on account of false pretext of marriage. He further submits that it is even mentioned in the FIR that she was in contact with the petitioner since last three months while continuing physical relationship. There is no reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging of the FIR. The incident alleged to have taken place does not inspire confidence rather seems to be very flimsy and unconvincing. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-appellant and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. In the present case, the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in Mahesh Balkrishna Dandane v. State of Maharashtra, 2014 (4) Crimes 37 (Bom.), decided on 12.3.2014, will hold good. The relevant part of the above mentioned judgment reads as under:-
The court ruled that allegations of rape based on false promises of marriage must consider the maturity and consent of the parties involved, emphasizing that sexual relations do not compel marriage.
A promise of marriage cannot vitiate consent given by a married woman, making allegations of rape based on such promises untenable.
(1) Misconception of fact – Failure to keep promise on a future uncertain date does not always amount to misconception of fact at inception of act itself.(2) Law holding that false promise to marriag....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that consent obtained on a false promise to marry is not a valid consent, and the validity of such consent must be determined based on the immediat....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.