The court ruled that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, especially in cases involving serious allegations of fraud and sexual offenses, emphasizing the need for a thorough consideration of the nature of accusations and potential risks.

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C . for grant of bail in case FIR No 81/2018 dated 10.07.2018, registered at PS Barakhamba Road, New Delhi under Section 377/498A/406/420/468/506/509/323 IPC on the statement of prosecutrix/complaint Ms. M. alleging therein that the petitioner posted his profile on JeevanSathi.com for his marriage with the name of ‘Abhinav Sharma’ it has been alleged that the petitioner had been using different names and posed himself as owner of Akshaya Deep media, Office at Sec.126, Tapasya Corporate Heights, Ground Floor, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.201301 and posed himself as owner of BMW Car bearing No.DL3CBM 4097 and House No.802, Tower 6, CHD Avenue, Sector-71, Gurugram, Haryana. The parents of the prosecutrix on finding the profile appropriate for the marriage proceeded with the same. The petitioner told that his parents were not alive and he was brought up by his maternal grand-parents and claimed and that he did not have any relatives. The petitioner also represented that he would inherit various properties from his parental as well as maternal grandparents in Kurukshetra, Haryana and Haridwar and his maternal and paternal grandparents use different name i.e. Abhinav Vashisht and Abhishek Sharma so he has changed his name as Abhi Vashisht. The marriage was solemnised on 12.03.2018. The parents of the prosecutrix allegedly spent around Rs.40 lakhs in the marriage and gave gold jewellery weighing 32 tolas i.e. Three Gold Sets, 12 Bangles, Bracelet, Ring, Two Gold Chains including other items worth Rs.25 lakhs. The parents also allegedly gave Rs.5 lakhs for household articles and Rs.2.5 lakhs on different occasions to the petitioner. The petitioner also took Rs.52,000/- using debit card and cash.

2. The prosecutrix alleged that after the marriage, the behaviour of the petitioner changed and he started torturing and harassing her physically and mentally. The complainant/prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner committed unnatural sex upon her including oral sex and anal penetrations against her wishes. The complainant/prosecutrix stated that the petitioner repeatedly committed unnatural sex upon her and had also threatened and physically tortured her.

3. The prosecutrix alleged that on 03.05.2018, the petitioner demanded Rs.11 lakhs cash and when she showed inability of her parents to give such a big amount, the petitioner gave her beatings and brought her to her parents house forcefully. The prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner threatened her that if she dare to come to his matrimonial house, he would kill her. The petitioner also did not allow the prosecutrix to take her belongings. The complainant stated that the petitioner in fact neither had a house nor the car and he had cheated upon her. The petitioner is also alleged to have been using various mobile phones and the same has also been mentioned in the FIR no. 81/2018 dated 10.07.2018, registered at PS Barakhamba Road. After investigation the charge sheet was filed under Section 377/498A/406/420/468/495/467/506/323 IPC.

4. The learned trial court finding a prima facie case framed the charges vide order dated 27.03.2021 under Section 419/420/467/468/471/406/376(n)493/377/323 and 509 IPC. Shri Manoj Swarup, learned Senior counsel has submitted that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 5 years. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the out of all the offences for which the petitioner has been charged, there are only two offenses i.e. under Sections 467 and 376 (2) (n) IPC entails punishment for life and punishment of not less than 10 years or the life. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact both of these offences were not part of the FIR. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet was filed by the IO under Section 467 without any material on record. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner