20-Yr-Old College Student Accused Of Raping Professor Granted Anticipatory Bail; Delhi High Court Says Relation Was Out Of Choice, Not Force

Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a 20-year-old college student accused of raping his professor, noting that the prosecutrix not only chose to enter a relationship with the applicant on her own, but also to continue with the same for over a year.

“All the aforesaid show the love, care and affection, the prosecutrix had for the applicant … Prima facie, it seems that she was in a relationship with the applicant out of choice and desire rather out of compulsion or force”, the court said.

Notably, the FIR against the applicant was registered under Sections 313/323/376/377/506/509/201/120B IPC. The prosecutrix had alleged that she had gotten married to the applicant in a temple, when he promised to legally marry her in future. Subsequently, the applicant got her pregnancy aborted and left after taking an advance of Rs.2.5 lakhs.

Senior Advocate Pramod Dubey argued on behalf of the applicant that the FIR was registered with the sole intention of harassing him. It was averred that the applicant had joined investigation on multiple occasions and did not seek to harm/threaten the prosecutrix.

APP for the State opposed bail on the ground that the alleged offences were heinous and Section 82 Cr.P.C. proceedings had been initiated against the applicant. It was pointed out that the Trial Court had rejected applicant’s anticipatory bail application noting that he had threatened her in the police station.

After hearing rival contentions, the court opined:

“While considering a case like the present one, involving offences under Section 376 of the IPC, though this Court has to be cognizant of the heinousness, gravity and severity of punishment involved thereof, it has to also take due note and give sufficient weightage to not only the facts and circumstances involved therein but also the factual matrix including the antecedents and background involved as well as the whereabouts thereof.”

In the facts of the case, it was noted that the prosecutrix was an adult lady, 35 years of age, who was undergoing divorce with her ex-husband. She had a ‘guru-shishya’ relation with the applicant and was aware of the repercussions of entering into a relationship with him, considering he had not reached marital age.

The court did not find merit in State’s opposition on the ground that Section 82 Cr.P.C. proceedings had been initiated against the applicant. It was underlined that the applicant was only a ‘proclaimed person’ u/s 82(1) Cr.P.C. evading arrest and had not been declared a ‘proclaimed offender’ u/s 82(4) Cr.P.C.

On the perception of threat from the applicant, it was observed that the prosecutrix had visited applicant’s relatives with the IO after registration of the FIR and not lodged any complaint when he allegedly threatened her in the police station.

“There is no plausible explanation given for the delay in registration of the present FIR”, the court further said.

In arriving at a conclusion, it considered that the applicant had clean antecedents and, on being granted interim bail by the Trial Court, had joined investigation on fourteen occasions.

Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhik Chimni, Ms. Pallavi Garg, Mr. Anant Khajuria, Mr. Saharsh, Mr. Satyam Sharma, Ms. Aditi, Mr. Akshat Sharma and Ms. Riya Pahuja, Advocates appeared for applicant

Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP appeared for State

Mr. Vikram Singh Jakhar, Mr. Mohit Yadav, Ms. Varnika Sharma and Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocates appeared for prosecutrix alongwith prosecutrix

Case Title: Sushant Kaushik v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1077

Click Here To Read/Download Order