"Whole Life Of A Young Girl Spoiled": Thane Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Concealing Homosexuality From Wife

Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh Gupta, in his order dated April 5, observed that prima facie it did appear that there was fraudulent intention by the husband in suppressing material facts of his personal life before marriage and "thereby blemishing the future of a young girl."

"It is worth to be noted that it is not only the financial loss but the whole life of a young girl has been spoiled by the material suppression. If this would have been openly shared prior to the marriage then the consequence would be different," the judge also observed.

The couple got married in November last year after a few meetings between the two based on a profile of the complainant-wife. However, they started living separately just three months later, as the husband refused to consummate the marriage on one pretext or the other, the complainant alleged.

"...as appears from the complaint soon after the marriage while the couple went for honey moon. It is alleged the applicant/accused avoided to consummate the marriage on the pretext of some disease and asked the complainant to change herself in according to applicant/accused," the order reads, noting this aspect of the complaint.

The wife also alleged while they were staying together, she came across (WhatsApp) conversations on the husband's mobile with male friends discussing their sexual life. "Some photographs and videos were also uploaded in the mobile phone wherein the applicant/accused was indulging into telephonic sex with his male partners. It was further revealed the applicant/accused was gay and interested in homosexuality…", the complainant alleged.

Additionally, she alleged that in order to impress upon her during their meetings before marriage, the husband showed her a bogus job offer letter showing his annual salary as Rs 14 lakh. She then lodged a complaint with Rabale Police Station this year under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 506 of IPC.

In his defence while seeking anticipatory bail, the husband's lawyer argued that during the period of marriage, the accused was working and was earning around Rs. 8 lakh annually and there were bright chances of increments in the near future.

It was argued that the allegations were vague and made only with intent to harass the accused and defame him in the society; that a false complaint was lodged only with intent to put him behind the bars; and that he had a fixed place of residence and hence, be protected from being arrested.

The application was opposed by the police as well as the complainant. The police presented the case diary before the court which showed chat messages between the accused and his male partners which indicated the he was interested in same sex. It was also argued that investigation on the aspect of bogus job offer letter was yet to be done and if released on anticipatory bail, the accused may not be available for investigation and threaten the witnesses, therefore physical interrogation was necessary.

The complainant's lawyer told the court that the applicant, by suppressing incriminating facts before the marriage, was only interested in financial assistance from the complainant's parents and had caused wrongful loss worth lakhs of rupees as expenditure worth Rs 19 lakh were incurred on the marriage and purchase of gold ornaments.

"No doubt, every individual has its dignity to live in the society. No other person can interfere into life style but that does not mean that a person gets liberty to spoil the life of either of spouse. The damage which is caused to defacto complainant definitely it is irreparable and cannot be compensated into money terms," the court observed.

The court also observed that anticipatory bail was a device to secure an individual's liberty and it was neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusation likely or unlikely.

"There are possibilities at the stage, if released on bail will tamper the evidence. Hence, applicant/accused has not made out case for pre-arrest bail. His physical interrogation is necessary," the court observed while rejecting the anticipatory bail application filed by the accused