Mumbai: The Bombay High Court, while granting anticipatory bail to a person accused of raping a woman on false pretext of marriage, has observed that a married woman cannot claim that she fell prey to the false promise of marriage by the accused.
High Court was hearing pre-arrest bail plea of an accused apprehending his arrest
Justice Manish Pitale observed this while hearing an anticipatory bail plea by a person who apprehended his arrest in a rape case lodged by a woman claiming that she developed friendly relations with the accused and thereafter he told her that he would marry her and in that backdrop, he allegedly took her to a lodge and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. The woman also had claimed that the accused stopped receiving her phone calls and threatened her that he would circulate her videos.
“In the first place, the informant (complainant) herself being a married woman, cannot claim that she fell prey to the false promise of marriage given by the applicant (accused). Being a married woman, she was clearly aware that she would not be able to marry the applicant. In any case, even the applicant is a married man and therefore, the theory of false promise of marriage prima facie appears to be misplaced,” the High Court observed.
Both are married individuals and therefore, there was no question of any false promise of marriage: Counsel
The counsel appearing for the accused argued before the court that both the accused as well as the complainant are married individuals and therefore, there was no question of any false promise of marriage for indulging in sexual intercourse with her. The counsel also informed the court that during the pendency of the anticipatory bail plea before the sessions court, there was an interim order in favour of the accused and that he has cooperated with the accused.
The State submitted that the sessions court in the order dismissing the application of the accused specifically observed that the accused had not cooperated with the investigation and he had not remained present when the Investigating Officer (IO) had called upon him to remain present.
What did the High Court note?
The High Court noted that during the period of six months when the accused was enjoying interim relief before the sessions court, he attended the police station on various dates and he also surrendered his mobile phone. It also noted that he could not attend the police station, when called on February 13, for the reason that his application was listed before the sessions court on that very date and said that it is enough to satisfy the court that he has attended the police station as and when called.
“There is nothing to indicate that the applicant till date has circulated any videos of the informant and therefore, sufficient grounds are made out for allowing the present application,” the High Court said while granting anticipatory bail to the accused with certain conditions imposed on him.
Comments are closed.