The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rishabh Rawat vs The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi consisting of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that when considering a bail plea, the court cannot determine whether a promise of marriage was made in bad faith or had a direct influence on the decision to engage in sexual activity. This decision must wait for a thorough evaluation of evidence during the trial.
Facts:
The petitioner sought regular bail through a petition filed u/s 439 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”). The petitioner is accused of violating sections 376/377 of the Indian Penal Code. A status report was filed on 23.04.2022. The Investigating Officer confirms that the petitioner has been in custody since 16.10.2021. Charges were framed against the petitioner under section 376 IPC only, and the petitioner was discharged for the offence under section 377 IPC. Some of the hearings were conducted in-camera due to the nature of the matter.
Contentions Made:
Petitioner: The petitioner and the prosecutrix were classmates who were in a relationship for two years. The case against the petitioner was due to a failed marriage proposal, with discrepancies in the allegations and a delayed filing of the FIR. Phone records proved the petitioner was at home during the incident, and the distance between his home and the prosecutrix’s home made it impossible for him to have been present there.
The prosecutrix admitted to being in a relationship during her medical examination, and their behaviour was suspicious. The petitioner's counsel provided evidence of a prior consensual relationship between them through WhatsApp chats and photos. Lastly, relying onPramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, it was submitted that a mere breach of ‘promise to marry’ does not constitute an offence of rape u/s 375/376 IPC.
Respondent: It was contended that the prosecutrix was consistent in her accusations and had made a statement under section 164 CrPC that supported her claims. The defendant was supposedly guilty based on WhatsApp conversations with a friend where he confessed to the crime. These conversations could be used as evidence against him, but the FSL reports were still pending. The prosecution cited Chattar Singh v. State of Haryana to contend that extrajudicial confessions could be considered by the court. Additionally, since the charge was u/s 376 IPC, the presumption under section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 would apply, and the court must therefore presume that the prosecutrix did not consent to the sexual act.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench observed that in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra), the Supreme Court determined that a “promise to marry” could be considered a false promise or breach of promise if it was made in bad faith and with no intention of being kept. The promise must also have direct relevance to the woman’s decision to engage in sexual activity.
It noted that when considering a bail plea, the court cannot determine whether a promise of marriage was made in bad faith or had a direct influence on the decision to engage in sexual activity. This decision must wait for a thorough evaluation of evidence during the trial. In the current case, both families were contemplating marriage, so it could not be said with certainty that the promise was false. Furthermore, the promise might not have directly influenced the decision to engage in sexual activity due to the ongoing romantic relationship between the two.
It further noted that the petitioner, a 20-year-old man, had been in custody for 1 year and 7 months. A charge sheet had been filed and a charge had been framed against him. The general rule as established in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand was that bail should be granted instead of imprisonment unless there are circumstances that suggest the petitioner may flee, interfere with justice, re-offend, intimidate witnesses, or cause other problems.
Judgment:
Upon a conspectus of the foregoing considerations, the Bench admitted the petitioner/Rishabh Rawat s/o of Harish Singh Rawat to regular bail pending trial, subject to certain conditions. But nothing in this order was to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending matter.
Case: Rishabh Rawat vs The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Citation: BAIL APPLN. 780/2022 & CRL.M.A 26639/2022, on 1st June 2023
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
For Petitioner: Mr. Vipin Rana with Mr. Shiv Kumar, Mr. Shyamendra Kumar, Ms. Ritu, Ms. K.S. Verma, Adv.
For Respondents: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the State with SI Preeti, P.S.: Karol Bagh. Mr. Deepak Singh Thakur, Advocate for the prosecutrix with prosecutrix-in-person.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://stocksnap.io/photo/people-couple-88H5BM7G82
