Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aman Aacharya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 MCRC-61940-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 61940 of 2021
(AMAN AACHARYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 04-01-2022
Shri Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhay Raj Singh Chouhan, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Shri G.P. Patel, counsel for the complainant.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is the first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant
of anticipatory bail. Applicant Aman Aacharya apprehends his arrest in
connection with Crime No.1025/2021 registered at Police Station Kareli,
District Narsinghpur for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 366, 376,
376(2)(n), 506 of the IPC.
As per prosecution case, earlier applicant made physical relation with
the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage and thereafter he denied to marry
her. It is further alleged that on 10/10/2021 when prosecutrix was alone in her
house applicant came their and committed rape with her. Thereafter he used
to threaten and harass her. Due to which prosecutrix lodged a report against
him.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in the crime. It is alleged that lastly the
applicant committed rape with the prosecutrix on 10.10.2021 while
prosecutrix lodged the report on 10.11.2021. There is no plausible
explanation regarding delay in lodging the FIR. In this regard the statement of
prosecutrix does not corroborate by her medical examination report.
Applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial, hence prayed for
release of the applicant on anticipatory bail. In this regard, he also placed
reliance on Apex Court judgment passed in the case of Sonu @ Subhash
Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2021 SCC Online
Signature Not Verified
SAN
SC 181.
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2022.01.05 10:13:17 IST
2 MCRC-61940-2021
Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the
objector/complainant opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant made
sexual relation with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage thereafter he
denied to marry her without any cause. So, he should not be released on
anticipatory bail. In this regard, learned counsel for the objector also placed
reliance on Apex Court judgment passed in the case of Anurag Soni v.
State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2019) 13 SCC 1 and Kaini Ranjan V.
State of Kerala reported in (2013) 9 SCC 113.
The facts of the case Sonu @ Subhash Kumar (supra) relied on by
the learned counsel of the applicant do not match with the present case. In
Sonu alias Subhash Kumar (supra) the Apex Court found that there is no
allegation to the effect that the promise to marry given to the prosecutrix was
false since the inception, on the contrary it would appear from the contents of
the FIR that there was a subsequent refusal on the part of the appellant to
marry the prosecutrix which gave rise to the registration of the FIR. While in
this case, sole defence of the applicant is that the prosecutrix lodge false
report against her. So, that judgment does not help the applicant.
In the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013)7 SCC
675 Hon'ble Apex Court held "There is a distinction between the mere breach
of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the court must examine
whether there was made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage by the
accused; and whether the consent involved was given after wholly
understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There may
be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account
of her love and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of
misrepresentation made to her by the accused, or where an accused on
account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or which were
beyond his control, was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to
do so. Such cases must be treated differently. An accused can be convicted
Signature Not Verified
SAN
for rape only if the court reaches a conclusion that the intention of the
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2022.01.05 10:13:17 IST
3 MCRC-61940-2021
accused was mala fide, and that he had clandestine motives"
In the case of State of U.P vs Naushad (2013) 16 SCC 651 Hon'ble
Apex Court also held "the consent taken by the accused with clear intention
not to fulfill the promise and persuaded the girl to believe that he is going to
marry her and obtained her consent for sexual intercourse under total
misconception, cannot be treated to be a consent."
From the above cited judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, a position
that emerges on the point whether consensual sex on the promise of marriage
can be called rape or not is that there may be a case where the prosecutrix
agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the
accused and not solely on account of misrepresentation made to her by the
accused, or where an accused on account of circumstances which he could
not have foreseen, or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry
her, despite having every intention to do so. Such cases must be treated
differently. But in such cases where the intention of the accused was mala
fide, and that he had clandestine motives and where the accused right from
the inception had mala fide intention and that he had made such false promise
of marriage from the very beginning in order to lure the victim to have sexual
relations with him, such acts comes under the purview of rape.
In this case, it is alleged that the applicant made sexual relations with
the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage, thereafter he denied marrying her.
Applicant has not assigned any reason as to why he does not want to marry
prosecutrix. The only defence of the applicant is that the prosecutrix lodged a
false report against him, but he has not assigned any reason as to why the
prosecutrix lodged a false report against him. So, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail
to the applicant. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is hereby
dismissed.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
Signature Not Verified
SAN JUDGE
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2022.01.05 10:13:17 IST
4 MCRC-61940-2021
(ra)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2022.01.05 10:13:17 IST
