Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 3618/2020
GAURAV KUMAR ….. Petitioner
Through : Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ….. Respondent
Through : Mr.M.S.Oberoi, APP for State.
Complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
ORDER
% 20.07.2021
1. The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.
2. This petition is filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case
FIR No.277/2020 dated 26.07.2020 under Section 376 IPC registered at PS
Maurya Enclave, Delhi. The petitioner is in custody since 26.07.2020 i.e.,
almost a year. The chargesheet in the present case was filed on 23.09.2020.
3. The brief facts as alleged in the FIR are the complainant/prosecutrix
claimed to be introduced to petitioner through Shaadi.com website in
November, 2018. Both of them became friends and it is alleged the
petitioner made false promises to marry her and took her from Cannaught
Place on 05.05.2019 to a hotel at Paharganj, Delhi and entered into physical
relation with her and later he called the prosecutrix at Lal Kuan, Ghaziabad
and made physical relations with her.
4. The petitioner introduced the prosecutrix with her family. The family
of the petitioner initially agreed for their marriage, but after using the
prosecutrix for physical relations, the petitioner herein backed out from his
promise to marry her on the plea his family is making demand of dowry of
Rs.15.00 lacs, which the prosecutrix was unable to pay.
BAIL APPLN. 3618/2020 Page 1 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:23.07.2021 13:39
5. The learned APP for the State submits the offence is serious in nature
as the life of the prosecutrix has since been spoiled by the petitioner and
hence bail should not be granted to the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits the
prosecutrix had concealed the factum of filing a complaint against the
petitioner at Ghaziabad, which was later withdrawn by her on 09.03.2020
stating, interalia, she does not want to keep any relation with the petitioner
herein or with his family members and does not wish to take any action
against him. The said statement of the prosecutrix was in her hand writing;
given in presence of her sister namely Poonam, annexed at page no.43 of the
paper book.
7. Further on record there is a report filed by SI Joginder Kumar of PS
Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad to the Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad stating
interalia the prosecutrix has withdrawn her compliant by saying since she
was rejected by the family members of the petitioner, she became angry and
had levelled the allegation against the petitioner herein and she later
withdrew her complaint and shall not have any connection with the
petitioner’s family members.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted besides concealing
the filing of the above complaint at Ghaziabad and its withdrawl, the
prosecutrix also failed to get herself medically examined in the present FIR.
Further there is a delay of more than a year in lodging the FIR which is fatal
to the case of the prosecution. He relied upon various judgments and orders
of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as also of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to
prove his point.
9. In Kunal vs. The State BAIL APPLN.2730/2018 decided on
BAIL APPLN. 3618/2020 Page 2 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:23.07.2021 13:39
13.12.2018 the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted bail in a case of
alleged false pretext of marriage when the accused had entered into physical
relationship with the prosecutrix and had refused to marry her or refused to
return the articles given to him in roka ceremony.
11. In Prem Prakash Choudhary vs. State BAIL APPLN.157/2018
decided on 24.01.2018 the Court held as follows:
“14. No doubt, the allegations made against the petitioner are very
serious in nature, but severity of allegations is not the only consideration
which should result in grant or denial of bail. The totality of the
circumstances has to be seen before a person is granted or admitted to
bail.
15. In the instant case, assuming that the allegations against the petitioner
are correct, at best, a case of consent of the complainant having been
obtained on the pretext of marriage would be made out. It may also be
noticed that FIR has been lodged on 28.12.2017 relating to incidents,
which allegedly occurred as far back as in April, 2016. The complainant
alleges to have gone on a sightseeing trip to Kangra in January 2016. The
complainant is alleged to have continued her relationship with the
Petitioner even after the alleged incident of giving an intoxicant in Soup.
The complainant does not deny having written the note on 15.10.2017,
wherein the alleged incident of petitioner giving intoxicant in a soup is
stated to have happened in January 2016 in Kangra. Though the
contention is that the note was written on the dictation of a police officer,
there is no such mention in the FIR which is lodged on 28.12.2017 and
further no complaint about the same was made till 22.01.2018 after the
first listing of this petition.”
13. In State vs. Sandeep in CRL.L.P.532/2019 decided on 25.09.2019 the
Court held as follows:
BAIL APPLN. 3618/2020 Page 3 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:23.07.2021 13:39
“21. Inducement to have a physical relationship by promising marriage
must have a clear nexus with the moment promise of marriage cannot be
held out as an inducement for engaging in sex over a protracted and
indefinite period of time. In certain cases, a promise to marry may induce
a party to agree to establish sexual relations, even though such party does
not desire to consent to the same. Such inducement in a given moment may
elicit consent, even though the concerned party may want to say no. Such
false inducement given with the intention to exploit the other party would
constitute an offence. However, it is difficult to accept that continuing with
an intimate relationship, which also involves engaging in sexual activity,
over a significant period of time, is induced and involuntary, merely on the
assertion that the other party has expressed its intention to get married.”
15. Further in Vikas Bhushan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in BAIL
APPLN.2340/2020 decided on 10.09.2020 the Court held as follows:
“14. Upon a conspectus of the foregoing, what weighs with this court is
firstly, that the case arises from a long-standing and evidently consensual
relationship between two well-educated adults; secondly, that the
allegation of ‘false’ promise of marriage or deception remains to be
proved during trial since, even the FIR records that the marriage
proposal was raised by the applicant with the complainant’s parents, who
also subsequently visited to meet the applicant’s parents in Ranchi;
thirdly, that the FIR came to be registered soon after the complainant
learned of the applicant’s marriage to a third person but not before; and
lastly, that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed after completing
investigation, and that therefore, no purpose in aid of investigation will be
served by detaining the applicant in prison any longer.”
16. Further in Bhushan Malik vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
2018 (3) JCC 1680 the petitioner was granted bail when there was a delay of
BAIL APPLN. 3618/2020 Page 4 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:23.07.2021 13:39
three months in reporting of the incident to the police. In Pramod Suryabhan
Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (2019) 9 SCC 608 the Court
held as follows:
“xxxxxxx……The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or
bear a direct nexus to the women’s decision to engage in the sexual act”
18. Coming to the facts of the case viz the first alleged incident of rape
was on 05.05.2019 and second incident on 14.02.2020 yet the FIR was
registered on 20.07.2020 i.e. approximately after a year of first incident
hence there was a considerable delay in lodging of FIR; there was also a
concealment of factum of filing and withdrawing of similar complaint
against the petitioner at Ghaziabad; the chargesheet has since been filed in
September 2020; the allegations require evidence, thus considering his
custody the petitioner herein, being behind the bars for an year now, I admit
the petitioner herein on bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/-
with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court/Duty MM/Jail Superintendent. The petitioner is directed not to
contact/threaten/intimidate the prosecutrix in any manner whatsoever, lest it
shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. The petitioner is further directed to
furnish his contact/address details to the Investigating Officer/SHO
concerned and shall keep his mobile location app open at all time.
19. The petition stands disposed of along with pending application(s).
20. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned Trial Court/Jail
BAIL APPLN. 3618/2020 Page 5 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:23.07.2021 13:39
Superintendent for information and compliance.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
JULY 20, 2021
DU
BAIL APPLN. 3618/2020 Page 6 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:23.07.2021 13:39