Dating Sites Not An Indication To Have A Judgment On Someone's Virtues: Allahabad HC In Alleged Case Of Sex On False Marriage Promise
While denying anticipatory bail to a rape accused, who allegedly establish a physical relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that dating sites are not an indication to have a judgment on anybody's virtues. This assertion from the Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal came in response to the argument raised by the counsel for...
While denying anticipatory bail to a rape accused, who allegedly establish a physical relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that dating sites are not an indication to have a judgment on anybody's virtues.
This assertion from the Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal came in response to the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner/accused, who sought to draw a presumption as to the easy virtue of the victim/woman while trying to derive the theory of consensual sex.
Significantly, the Court was hearing the third Anticipatory Bail Application filed by the applicant in terms of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, noting that there was non-appreciation of the facts on merit by the High Court, which the petitioner wished to press for consideration.
Background
Essentially, in the instant case, the Victim and Accused met on dating, and allegedly, on the false promise to marry, the accused had sexual intercourse with her, and thereafter, he resiled from his promise leading to the registration of the instant case against him by the woman/victim.
The Counsel for the bail applicant submitted that the victim and the accused met on a dating site on July 28, 2019, and on August 2, 2019, for the first time, the victim had met the applicant.
Further, on August 04, 2019, the applicant took her to a Hotel in Noida, discussed marriage, and entered into a physical relationship with her.
Reading this fact, it was submitted that within four days of their meeting, the establishment of a physical relationship by the victim demonstrated that it was a case of consensual sex.
It was also argued that there was no talk of marriage between the two and therefore, the allegation that they had indulged in a physical relationship in the name of the marriage proposal, was not made out.
Court's observations
Rejecting the primary argument of the counsel of the bail applicant that it was a case of consensual sex, the Court, at the outset, observed thus:
"Dating sites are not an indication to have a judgment on anybody's virtues. Merely, two adults meet on a dating site, and on the third day of meeting him, exchange of words are able to garner confidence that the other party is willing to marry and in the name of marriage, if physical favour is sought, then that will not amount to characterizing a victim, as a person of easy virtues having consented to physical relationship without there being any provocation like promise to perform marriage."
Further, referring to the chats dated July 28, 2019, the Court noted that inquiring about the family status of the applicant and then about the birth date, etc., so also inquiry about personal habits like smoking and drinking, etc. are sufficient indications that there was something more than a physical relationship in the mind of the victim.
"…it is true that there is no direct reference to the marriage proposal, but exchange of words showing affection and admiration for a newly met couple without making mention of marriage in the chat does not meant that the allegation of seeking favour without there being any promise of marriage can be deduced from the mobile chat, produced by learned Senior Advocate on record," the Court noted.
Lastly, noting that a Coordinate Bench had extended benefit of anticipatory bail only till filing of the charge sheet, and taking into account the fact that the applicant had failed to surrender after the expiry of interim protection extended in his favor, the Court refused his bail plea.
"I am of the opinion that applicant having failed to surrender after expiry of interim protection, extended in his favour, by a Coordinate Bench on 13.02.2020 till the submission of the police report and has not appeared before the court concerned despite submission of police report and there being no mention of fact, as to when applicant has received notices in regard to submission of police report", the Court noted while dismissing his pre-arrest bail plea.
The case was argued by Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Counsel Somya Chaturvedi on behalf of the applicant.
Case title - Abhhey Chopra v. State of U.P. and Another
Read Order