Gujarat High Court
Piyushbhai Virjibhai Udhreja vs State Of Gujarat on 5 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/986/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 986 of 2025
==========================================================
PIYUSHBHAI VIRJIBHAI UDHREJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. JAYDEEP M SHUKLA(6974) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, AGP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 05/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the
respondent-State.
2. Present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as "Atrocity Act") has been filed by the
appellant for anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in
connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11211009250226 of 2025
registered with Chotila Police Station, Surendranagar for the
offences punishable under Section 376(1), 376(2)(n) of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii)
and 3(2)(v) of the Atrocity Act.
3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant
submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence
and he is falsely implicated in the offence. It is submitted that, it
is alleged in the complaint that present applicant lured the
complainant with a false promise of marriage and forcibly
engaged in non-consensual sexual intercourse with her. He
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/986/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
repeatedly took the complainant to a hotel and did not marry
her, thereby insulting her based on her caste. The offense has
been registered under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(n) of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(5) of the
Atrocities Act. It is submitted that the applicant and the
complainant were working in the same company and had known
each other well since 2017. During this period, the applicant
developed a consensual relationship with the complainant. The
applicant is 28 years old, whereas the complainant is a 32-year-
old major. It is further submitted that the complainant herself
stated in the complaint that both the complainant and the
applicant entered into a Gandharva Vivah. So far as the offences
under the Atrocities Act are concerned, neither the applicant nor
his family members ever used any derogatory or casteist remarks
to insult the complainant. The relationship between the
applicant and the complainant was entirely consensual, and
they had been in a relationship for a considerable period. It is
submitted that the alleged incidents took place between 2017
and 01.03.2024, while the complaint was lodged on 16.03.2025.
The complaint does not mention that the complainant offered
any resistance to the relationship initiated by the applicant. It is
further submitted that, considering the overall facts and
circumstances, the applicant may be granted bail with
appropriate conditions.
4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State
and learned advocate appearing for the complainant have
opposed grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of the
offence. The complainant and the applicant had known each
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/986/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
other since November 1, 2017, while working in the same
company. Over time, they developed a close relationship. The
applicant took the complainant to Shivshakti Hotel on several
occasions, where they spent nights together, engaging in
physical relations under the guise of a Gandharva Vivah. The
applicant repeatedly assured the complainant that they would
formally marry once his parents approved the relationship.
Exploiting her trust and emotions, he continued this relationship
for several years on the false promise of marriage. Later, the
applicant shifted to Morbi for better employment. Despite
reduced interaction, he continued meeting the complainant and
maintained a sexual relationship, even when the complainant
expressed reluctance and insisted on formalizing the marriage.
The applicant falsely reassured her that they were already legally
married due to the Gandharva Vivah and that a formal wedding
would soon follow. On March 3, 2025, the complainant visited
the applicant's residence to discuss the marriage, where she was
assaulted and insulted by the applicant's family members with
casteist remarks. It was then that she discovered the applicant
was already married. Consequently, the rpesent compliant was
filed. A separate complaint was also filed against the applicant
for rape and caste-based atrocities. It is further submitted that
women from marginalized communities typically avoid lodging
such complaints due to societal pressure and family honor. In
the present case, the applicant not only deceived and
emotionally exploited the complainant with a false promise of
marriage but also engaged in non-consensual physical relations.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that such
acts, committed under false pretenses of marriage, amount to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/986/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
rape and are legally punishable. Therefore, the present
application may be dismissed.
5. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and
perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon
the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and
strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a
plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the point. It is
well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be
borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the
nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the
applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously
undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of
any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee
from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with
the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him
so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate
examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit
of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be
avoided. I have considered the following aspects.
(1) So far as the offence under the Atrocities Act is concerned,
merely belonging to a Scheduled Caste is not sufficient to
constitute an offence under the Act. Even upon perusal of
the investigation papers and the victim's statements, there
is no material on record to suggest that the applicant or his
family members insulted the complainant with reference to
her caste.
(2) So far as the allegation of exploitation under the guise of a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/986/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
false promise of marriage is concerned, both the applicant
and the complainant are majors. The applicant being 28
years old and the complainant a 32-year-old educated
woman. They have been in a long-standing consensual
relationship. Nowhere in the complaint is it stated that the
complainant resisted the relationship. It is also mentioned
that they stayed together in various hotels and even
solemnized a Gandharv Vivah. Prima facie, this does not
appear to be a case of a forcefully developed relationship,
but rather one of mutual consent between the applicant
and the complainant.
(3) Prima facie, it appears that the complainant filed the
complaint belatedly after learning that the present
applicant was going to marry another girl, alleging that the
applicant had exploited her under the guise of a false
promise of marriage.
(4) There was a love affair between the appellant and the
victim, and they were traveling and staying together at
various places;
(5) Where a complainant, a highly qualified major woman,
alleges rape based on a false promise of marriage after a
long consensual relationship, the allegations are deemed
unreliable due to material contradictions and prolonged
silence.
(6) Now, nothing is required to be discovered or recovered from
the accused and there is no possibility of the trial taking
place in the near future;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/986/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
(7) In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Naim Ahmed vs. State of NCT of Delhi,
reported in (2023) 15 SCC 385 and Biswajyoti Chatterjee
V. State Of West Bengal, reported in 2025 INSC 458, the
present appeal requires consideration.
(8) In the case of Prashant Bharti vs. State of NCT of Delhi,
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 404, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed
that 'it is inconceivable that the complainant or any
woman would continue to meet the appellant or maintain
a prolonged association or physical relationship with him
in the absence of voluntary consent on her part.'
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside
the impugned findings, noting that the physical
relationship between the complainant and the appellant
was consensual and cannot be said to have been without
her consent or against her will.
(9) In the casess of Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of
Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 921; Prashant v. State
(NCT of Delhi), 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 904; Deepak Gulati v.
State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675; and Shivashankar v.
State of Karnataka, (2019) 18 SCC 204, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that a physical relationship must be directly
traceable to a false promise of marriage to constitute rape.
Prolonged consensual relations negate the claim of
vitiated consent. A mere breach of promise does not
amount to a false promise, and the accused's mala fide
intent must be clearly established.
6. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/986/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1
SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law
laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665
and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State
(NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow
the present application.
7. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing
that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant in
connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11211009250226 of 2025
registered with Chotila Police Station, Surendranagar, the
applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond
of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of
like amount on the following conditions that applicant :
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make
himself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station
on 15/05/2025 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.
and the IO shall ensure that no unnecessary
harassment or inconvenience is caused to the
applicant;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the court or to any police officer;
(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation
and not to play mischief with the evidence collected
or yet to be collected by the police;
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/986/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
address to the investigating officer and the court
concerned and shall not change his residence till the
final disposal of the case till further orders;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the
Court and if having passport shall deposit the same
before the Trial Court within a week;
(g) an order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner
limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or
investigative agency, to investigate into the charges
against the applicant;
(h) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to
move the learned trial Court for a direction under
Section 483(2) to arrest the accused, in the event of
violation of any term, such as absconding, non-
cooperating during investigation, evasion,
intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view
to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.-
(i) shall not contact the witnesses or the victim, either
directly or indirectly.
8. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the
applicant on bail.
9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Application
is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
