The single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra of the Patna High Court in the case of Rohitash Kumar vs. the state of Bihar held that to establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner along with his sister used to visit the informant's house and the Petitioner proposed to marry her. Then, the informant asked the Petitioner to talk to her parents and they clarified that they would not give any dowry which was duly accepted by the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner on the pretext of false promise of marriage made physical relations with her many times. Subsequently, the petitioner refused to marry her and demanded a dowry.
The Petitioner filed the anticipatory bail application in connection with the case registered for offences punishable under Sections 493 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and after further investigation, it has been converted into Section 420/376 of Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was furthermore contended that no sexual relationship took place between them and the marriage was even called off due to the demand of dowry. Also, the Petitioner is the constable in the Border Security Force (BSF) for the defence and security of the nation and committed no offence, as alleged. At last, it was contended that they had known each other for more than 6 years, and in the medical examination, no recent sexual intercourse was found.
The learned counsel relied upon the judgments titled Uday vs. State of Karnataka, and Shambhu Kharwar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr
Contentions of the informant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant contended that the petitioner is specifically and directly accused of having developed sexual relations with her on a false pretext of marriage, refusing to marry her afterwards in exchange for dowry, and thus doesn't deserve anticipatory bail.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble court observed that there is a "misconception of fact" that invalidates the woman's consent when the promise to marry is false and the maker's intention at the time of making the promise was not to uphold it but to deceive the woman to encourage her to participate in sexual relations. A promise that is broken, however, cannot be characterized as a false promise. A false promise must have been made with no intention of being kept at the time it was made for it to be proven false.
The court relied upon the judgments titled Uday vs. the State of Karnataka, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharastra & Anr, Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Shambhu Kharwar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh.
It was noted that the petitioner and the informant were having a consensual physical relationship; they had known each other for six years, and although there had been some family discussions about getting married, nothing had come to fruition. No evidence exists to suggest that the promise to marry made to the informant was dishonest at the outset. The petitioner has promised to assist the police with their inquiry.
Based on these considerations, the court allowed the anticipatory bail application.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court disposed of the application.
Case Title: Rohitash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra
Case No.: Criminal Misc. No. 3774 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Puneet Siddhartha, Advocate
Advocate for the Informant: Mr. Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, APP
Advocate for the State: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://stocksnap.io/photo/people-couple-88H5BM7G82
