Courts Can’t Be Used As "Matrimonial Facilitators" For Pressurizing Rape Accused To Get Married To Victim Or To Obtain Bail: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that courts cannot be used as “matrimonial facilitators” for pressurizing the accused to get married to the victim or be denied bail in sexual assault cases.

Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma added that courts can also not be used by the accused for obtaining bail by asking the complainant to appear before the court and state that he was ready to get married to her.

“The Courts of law cannot be used as a forum for the purpose of facilitating marriages and be used as marriage facilitators by first lodging an FIR alleging that the accused, after establishing physical relations, had refused to get married to the victim and later appear before the Court for either grant of bail which they have been opposing for many months,” the court said.

Justice Sharma made the observations while denying bail to a man accused of raping a woman on the false pretext of marrying her.

The counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the victim or complainant was appearing before the court with a request to grant bail him bail, since now he was ready to marry her.

Rejecting the plea, the court noted that the trial court had dismissed the first anticipatory bail application of the accused and that at that time, neither the complainant appeared before the judge nor she contended that she did not oppose the bail application as the accused wanted to get married to her.

“Therefore, this Court notes that till 02.08.2023, and thereafter on 10.08.2023 when the bail application came up for hearing before this Court and was withdrawn after some arguments, there was nothing to suggest that the accused and the complainant were contemplating getting married or that accused had admitted to having a consensual relationship with the victim. Even on the said date, arguments were addressed that the accused had been falsely implicated in the present case,” the court said.

Justice Sharma observed that the victim, as per her statement to the police and the Magistrate, was always willing to get married to the accused, however, it was he who had denied having ever promised marriage to her or having established physical relations with her on pretext of marriage.

“…it is clear that the accused as well as the complainant have taken the judicial system and the investigating agencies for a ride and are trying to manipulate the judicial system to their advantage in different ways, one for seeking anticipatory bail though now, non-bailable warrants have already been issued against him since he was absconding and the complainant for getting married to him,” the court said.

It was noted that the complainant had first got the FIR registered and gave a statement against the accused that sexual relations were made on false pretext of marriage, which was also reiterated in her statement recorded before the Magistrate.

“Thereafter, on 22.08.2023, the complainant appeared before the Court of learned ASJ and stated that she wanted the accused to be released on bail, since now both of them want to get married. Once this argument did not find favour with the learned ASJ, the accused has approached this Court with a similar plea and the complainant has appeared before this Court too and has stated that now she no longer wishes to oppose the bail application and stated that the accused be granted anticipatory bail,” the court noted.

Justice Sharma observed it was nothing short of taking the judicial system and the investigating agency for a ride by both the parties through their conduct and different stands taken before courts and the investigating agency.

“The judicial system and the investigating agency have invested time and resources which need investment of finances and human resources by the State and the judicial system,” the court said.

Justice Sharma observed that the judicial system cannot be used to settle scores between the parties or to pressurize any party to act in a particular manner to reach one’s goal.

“Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as the case has travelled from the point of lodging of the FIR till the present point of investigation. The truth has to prevail by investigating into allegations for which custodial interrogation of the accused may be required for the purpose of confronting the complainant also with the accused to reach the truth,” the court said.