IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Vijay Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 197 of 2025
Decided On : 25-03-2025
(A) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita - Sections 64, 324(4), 351(2) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 452, 354A, 323 - Pre-arrest bail - The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail for alleged offences involving false promise of marriage and sexual relationship with the victim, who later discovered the petitioner was married - The court emphasized the need for caution in granting anticipatory bail, particularly in serious offences like rape, and noted that the petitioner made a false representation to the victim regarding his marital status. (Paras 1, 7, 11, 13)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - The court reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, balancing individual rights against public interest and the gravity of the offence. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of entering into a sexual relationship with the victim under the false pretense of being unmarried, resulting in a child. The victim had previously filed a complaint that was later withdrawn. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had made a false representation regarding his marital status, establishing prima facie grounds for the alleged offences. (Paras 11, 13)
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner’s actions constituted a false promise to marry and the implications of the victim's affidavit regarding their relationship. (Paras 11, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner’s misrepresentation of his marital status constituted grounds for the alleged offences, emphasizing the serious nature of the allegations and the need for careful consideration in granting bail. (Paras 11, 14)
Result: The petition for pre-arrest bail is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that FIR No. 7/2025 dated 01.02.2025 was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64, 324(4), 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) registered at Police Station Panchrukhi, District Kangra, H.P. As per the prosecution, the accused had entered into sexual relationship with the victim with a false promise to marry her. The victim had earlier made a complaint against the petitioner. FIR No.67 of 2021, dated 30.01.2021, was registered in Police Station Bharwana, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 354A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, which was withdrawn by the victim. The FIR was quashed vide order dated 17.11.2021 passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 560 of 2021. The victim swore an affidavit asserting that she was residing in a live-in relationship with the petitioner. The petitioner and the victim have a son aged 3 years out of this relationship. The victim was aware of the marital status of the petitioner. The petitioner is innocent, and he has not committed any offence. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose; hence, the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim made a complaint to the police asserting that she met the accused in the year 2018. The petitioner/accused told her that he was a bachelor and promised to marry her. He entered into a physical relationship with the victim. The victim became pregnant in the year 2022. The accused assured the victim that he would marry her soon. The victim gave birth to a child in the year 2022. She asked the accused to honour his promise and solemnise the marriage with her. The accused failed to honour his promise. The victim found in the year 2025 that the accused was already married, and he had made a false representation to the victim that he was a bachelor. The accused entered the room of the victim on 19.1.2025 at about 10:00 pm and broke the articles lying inside it. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The statement of the victim was also recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palampur. The accused/petitioner maintained a physical relationship with the victim on a false promise to marry, hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Narender K. Guleria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Narender K. Guleria, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The victim was aware of the marital status of the petitioner. She had executed an affidavit during the previous proceedings that she was residing with the petitioner in a live-in relationship with her consent. There is no question of any rape; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He represented to the victim that he was a bachelor whereas he is married. The petitioner had deceived the victim in this manner; therefore, he prayed that the present be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (9) SCC 24 that the power of pre-arrest is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed:
“67. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the same has to be ex
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, granted only in exceptional circumstances, particularly in serious offences like rape, where misrepresentation of marital status is involved.
The court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, requiring exceptional circumstances, and must balance individual rights with public interest and the need for effective investi....
Pre-arrest bail is a privilege, not a right, and must be granted only in exceptional circumstances, considering the gravity of accusations.
Pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary measure and should not impede a fair investigation, particularly in serious charges like rape where duress may negate consent.
Anticipatory bail under Section 438 requires consideration of the nature of the offence, potential for influencing investigation, and discretion of the court.
The court ruled that consensual relationships turning sour do not justify rape allegations or automatic custodial interrogation, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence before arrest.
A promise of marriage cannot vitiate consent given by a married woman, making allegations of rape based on such promises untenable.
Pre-arrest bail may be denied due to specific overt acts presented against the accused, highlighting the seriousness of the charges and potential for reoffending.
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.
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.