Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Raping Victim On False Promise To Marry By Concealing His Religious Identity

The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that it was a case wherein the accused trapped the victim by representing himself to be a person of different religion and made a physical relationship with her against her will.

“…the applicant has introduced himself as a person of a different religion to deceive the victim and made a promise of marriage to have a physical relationship with her, then it would be a case of a false promise of marriage,” the Court added.

The facts in brief

The victim herself lodged an FIR under Sections 376(2)(n), 420, 506 IPC and 3/5 U.P. Prevention of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act against the accused in August last year with the allegations that five months ago she met the accused, wherein he introduced himself as Vishal and they started talking with each other. It was further alleged she used to visit Bareilly to meet him, where she was repeatedly raped under threat to make viral her unsolicited photographs.

Thereafter, as per the allegations, just a day before lodging of FIR, the accused took her to a hotel, wherein she came to know that boy's real name is Chand Babu and that he belongs to the Muslim religion.

When the Victim confronted him as to why he introduced himself to her as a Hindu boy, the applicant forced her to convert to the Muslim religion, and she was again raped there, and by luck she escaped from the hotel and lodged the FIR.

Following this, the accused was arrested and hence, seeking bail in the matter, he moved to the High Court with a bail application on the ground that it was a typical case of honeytrap wherein he was trapped by the victim. Later on, she started blackmailing him.

It was further submitted by his counsel that the victim knew his actual religion as it would be improbable that despite meeting him regularly, still she could not know about his religion.

Lastly, it was submitted that in the visitor's register maintained at the Hotel (where both of them met), the name of the accused-applicant was written as Chand Babu and the name of the victim was mentioned as Neha Khan and as such, it was evident that victim knew the religion of applicant and in order to conceal her own identity, she showed herself as a Muslim girl.

High Court’s observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the Victim had specifically stated in FIR as well as in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC that the applicant introduced himself to be a Hindu boy and he repeatedly made physical relationship with her initially with a promise to marry, however, later on, under threat that he would put her unsolicited photographs on social media platforms.

The Court further referred to the statement of the Manager of the Hotel, recorded during the trial that at the Hotel, only the applicant submitted a copy of the Aadhar card and the signature of the victim was in the name of Seema, therefore, the Court added, apparently she did not know that her name was shown as Neha Khan in visitor's register.

In view of this, the Court observed that since the beginning, if a person has a mala fide intention to deceive a victim, as in the instant case, wherein the applicant has introduced himself as a person of a different religion to deceive the victim and made a promise of marriage to have a physical relationship with her, then it would be a case of a false promise of marriage.

“In view of the above discussion and considering the facts of the present case, it does not appear to be a case of honeytrap, rather it is a case of trap made by the applicant by representing himself to be a person of different religion and trapped victim to have physical relationship against her will and later on under threat of putting her unsolicited photographs on social media platforms,” the Court said as it rejected the bail application.