Subhash vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 15013 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 15013 Raj
Judgement Date : 21 December, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Subhash vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 December, 2022

Bench: Farjand Ali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15812/2022

Subhash S/o Sh. Jetharam, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Vill. Melana Ps Kherapa Dist. Jodhpur At Present R/o At Rao Ki Bagechi Basni Boranada Jodhpur Raj. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SK Dadhich Mr. Nayab Khan Ms. Geeta For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

21/12/2022

1. The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner

Subhash S/o Sh. Jetharam under Section 439 Cr.P.C against the

impugned order dated 09.12.2022 passed by learned court below

in connection with FIR No.283/2022 registered at Police Station

Pratapnagar, District Jodhpur for the offence(s) under Sections

376 & 384 of I.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case

has been foisted against the petitioner. He has nothing to do with

the alleged offences. No useful purpose would be served by

keeping him behind the bars. They used to exchange chats and

calls with each other, screenshots of which also reflect the fact of

consent of the prosecutrix. Her allegations that she was seduced

(2 of 4) [CRLMB-15812/2022]

on account of false promise of marriage seems to be very flimsy,

unconvincing and highly improbable. It is reflecting from the

record that the prosecutrix is a lady aged of 28 years. As per the

allegations levelled in the FIR and statements recorded under

Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., she submitted herself before the

petitioner on account of false pretext of marriage. It is submitted

that the FIR came to be lodged on 29.09.2021 levelling the

allegations of subjecting her to rape on account of false promise to

marry. He further submits that it is even mentioned in the FIR that

she was in relationship with the petitioner since one year while

continuing physical relationship. Thus, as the prosecutrix is a

consenting party, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application.4.Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the material

available on record.

In the present case, the judgment passed by the Bombay

High Court in Mahesh Balkrishna Dandane Vs. State of

Maharashtra, 2014 (4) Crimes 37 (Bom.), decided on 12.3.2014,

will hold good. The relevant part of the above mentioned

judgment reads as under:-

" that to satisfy the sexual urge is a free decision of every major individual irrespective of gender. Thus, promise to marry in any manner, cannot be a condition precedent to have sex. However, the behavioral pattern and psyche of Indian society has to be taken into account while dealing with this issue. Since many generations, virginity of a woman is considered precious and there is amoral taboo that it is a responsibility of a woman to be a virgin at the time of marriage. However ,today, the young generation is exposed to different interactions with each other and is well

(3 of 4) [CRLMB-15812/2022]

informed about sexual activities; similarly, the late marriages and economic independence are also relevant factors. The society is trying to be liberated but carries baggage of different notions of morality wherein sex before marriage is a matter of censure and hence, it is a hush- hush subject. In fact, it is an issue before the social thinkers to educate and guide the society. Under such circumstances, a young woman who is in love with a boy forgets that to have sex is her option like her counterpart but somehow refuses to take the responsibility of her decision. If at all she has indulged into sexual activities even on a promise to marry, the girl may land up emotionally and physically in a pathetic situation after break up. To marry someone is a matter of choice. It cannot be imposed on anybody. Only because two individuals are sexually involved with each other, it is not compulsory for them to marry. Initially, a boy and a girl genuinely may want to marry and are true to their emotions and establish sexual relationship, however, after sometime, they may find that they are not mentally or physically compatible and one decides to withdraw from the relationship. Under such circumstances, nobody can compel these two persons to marry only because they had sexual relationship. It is necessary to have a healthy, objective and legal approach towards these incidents. There may be moral bonding between the two persons when they indulge into sexual activities with promise to marry and it is also a fact that ultimately women only can remain pregnant and therefore, she suffers more than the man. However, in law, this cannot be labelled in any manner as a rape.

The submission of learned counsel that the prosecutrix is a

mature lady, who knows what is good and what is bad for her and

is aware about her welfare, did not raise any complain for so long,

seems to be worth considering. It is a matter of common nature

relating to a love relationship between a girl and a boy wherein

the girl was maintaining physical relations with the boy but when

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-15812/2022]

things turned sour between them, she raised an accusation of

rape against him.

Be that as it mat at this stage, this court refrains from

passing any comment on the merits of this case.

4. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the