Whether Promise Of Marriage Was False & Made In Bad Faith Is To Be Decided At Trial Stage, Not In Bail Pleas: Delhi HC

“This is also not the stage when the court must, or even can, finally decide if the purported false promise of marriage was of immediate relevance, or bore a direct nexus, to the prosecutrix‟s decision to engage in the sexual act. Such a finding or decision must await a thorough assessment and evaluation of evidence to be led by the parties at the trial”.

Considering the admitted ongoing relationship between the petitioner-accused and the prosecutrix, a bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambani observed, “At this stage therefore, it can hardly be said with any conviction that the purported promise of marriage made by the petitioner to the prosecutrix was ex-facie false; and that it had been made in bad faith, with no intention of being adhered to when it was given. Considering the admittedly ongoing romantic relationship between the two, it also cannot be said with any certitude that the purported promise of marriage bore immediate relevance or direct nexus to the prosecutrix‟s decision to engage in the sexual act with the petitioner”.

Advocate Vipin Rana appeared for the petitioner-accused, Advocate Deepak Singh Thakur appeared for the prosecutrix, and APP Tarang Srivastava appeared for the State.

In the matter, the petitioner-accused sought a regular bail for an alleged offence under Sections 376/377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The petitioner submitted that both him and the prosecutrix are ‘major’, and were classmates, who are in a relationship for the last two years. While stating the facts, the petitioner further alleged that the present case has only been foisted upon him since a proposal for the two marrying each other went awry.

Furthermore, evidences (WhatsApp chats and photos) were placed to contend that the couple was in fact in a relationship, and the presence of the petitioner at the requisite time of the alleged incident was impossible.

The counsel for the petitioner relied on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 to submit that a mere breach of “promise to marry” does not constitute an offence of rape under sections 375/376 IPC.

However, the State vehemently opposed the grant of bail while relying on certain extra-judicial confessions made by the petitioner. Further submitted that the prosecutrix has consistently reiterated her allegation of forcible sexual intercourse, and that she has not resiled from the three key aspects of the incidents, viz. that they were forcible, without her consent, and unnatural.

The State also argued that since charge was framed under section 376 IPC, the presumption under section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 will apply, and the court must therefore presume that the prosecutrix did not consent to the sexual act.

The single-judge bench on the question that whether a “promise to marry” is a “false promise” or a “breach of promise” cited Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, where the Supreme Court had observed,

“…The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act.”

The bench, however, was of the opinion that such questions should be looked into at the trial stage and not in matters of bail.

Therefore, while noting that the petitioner is a young man of about 20 years of age, and that he has been in judicial custody for the last about 1 year and 7 months, the Court granted bail.

The bench also relied upon the principle “bail not jail” as propounded by Justice Krishna Iyer in State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308.

Cause Title: Rishabh Rawat v. The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi