Married Woman Cannot Claim That She Fell Prey To False Promise Of Marriage: Bombay HC Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case
The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to an accused for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC, while observing that a married woman cannot claim that she fell prey to a false promise of marriage.
The Court noted that a married woman would be clearly aware that she would not be able to marry the accused inspite of his alleged promise to marry. “In any case, even the applicant is a married man and therefore, the theory of false promise of marriage prima facie appears to be misplaced,” the Court stated.
A Single Bench of Justice Manish Pitale observed, “In the first place, the informant herself being a married woman, cannot claim that she fell prey to the false promise of marriage given by the applicant. Being a married woman, she was clearly aware that she would not be able to marry the applicant.”
Advocate Nagesh Somanath Khedkar appeared for the applicant, while APP Balraj B. Kulkarni represented the respondent.
The accused had filed an application for apprehension of arrest for offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC.
The informant in her statement submitted that she developed friendly relations with the accused who told her that he would marry her. Against that backdrop, the accused allegedly took the informant to a lodge and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, it was alleged that the accused threatened the informant that he would circulate her videos.
The accused argued that both he and the informant were married individuals and therefore, there was no question of any false promise of marriage for indulging in sexual intercourse with the informant.
The High Court stated that the theory of false promise of marriage prima facie appeared to be “misplaced.”
“As regards videos being made viral by the applicant, it is brought to the notice of this Court that during the period of six months when the applicant was enjoying interim relief before the Sessions Court, he attended the police station on various dates and he also surrendered his mobile phone,” the Court noted.
The Bench noted the photocopies of the diary are produced for perusal. “There is nothing to indicate that the applicant till date has circulated any videos of the informant and therefore, sufficient grounds are made out for allowing the present application,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application.
Cause Title: Vishal Nagnath Shinde v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:38150)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Nagesh Somanath Khedkar and Shubham Sane
Respondent: APP Balraj B. Kulkarni
