Insufficient Evidence To Prove False Promise, Marriage Talks Held Between Families: Patna HC While Granting Bail To BSF Jawan Accused Of Rape

In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court granted anticipatory bail to a Border Security Force (BSF) Jawan accused of cheating and raping a woman under the false pretext of marriage. The accused, known to the informant for six years, was alleged to have engaged in a consensual physical relationship. The Court found no evidence suggesting the promise of marriage was false from the beginning.

The ruling came in an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for anticipatory bail in connection with a 2022 case registered for offenses punishable under Sections 493 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, after further investigation, the case was converted into Sections 420/376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The prosecution alleged that the informant and the petitioner's sister were friends. The petitioner, along with his sister, used to visit the informant's house, where he expressed his intention to marry her.

The prosecution further contended that the informant requested the petitioner to discuss their relationship with her parents. Upon doing so, the informant's parents stated that they would not provide any dowry, to which the petitioner agreed. Subsequently, the petitioner gave a mobile phone to the informant and engaged in physical relations with her multiple times under false promises.

It was alleged that later on, the petitioner refused to marry the informant and demanded a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs, along with a Bullet motorcycle. Additionally, other individuals associated with the petitioner threatened the informant and her family, warning them of severe consequences if she reported the matter to the police or took legal action, it is said.

The petitioner's counsel vehemently denied the allegations, asserting that the petitioner was innocent and falsely implicated. It was argued that no physical or sexual relationship occurred between the parties, and the marriage was called off due to the arrogance of the informant's family.

Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra observed, “In the present case, as per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the informant were involved in the consensual physical relationship; they were known to each other for six years, talks of marriage held between their family members but the same had not been concluded. There is no evidence to support that the promise to marry made to informant was false at the inception. The petitioner has taken undertaking to cooperate with the police in investigation.”

Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, and in light of the prevailing legal standpoint, the Court granted the anticipatory bail application. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon arrest or surrender before the trial Court within six weeks from the date of the judgment.

Counsel/s for the Petitioner: Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Puneet Siddhartha, Advocate

Counsel/s for the Informant: Mr. Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, APP

Counsel/s for the State: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 118

Case Title: Rohitash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Case No.: Criminal Misc. No. 3774 of 2023

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement