Only Because Two Individual Are Sexually Involved, It Is Not Compulsory For Them To Marry: Mumbai Court Allows Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused of Rape

A Mumbai Court on Friday noted that only because two individuals are sexually involved with each other, it is not compulsory for them to marry. The observation was made while granting anticipatory bail to three accused persons booked in connection with a criminal complaint of Rape on false promise to marry.

Additional Sessions Judge PM Gupta went on to remark that,

To marry someone is a matter of choice and it cannot be imposed on anybody. Only because two individual are sexually involved with each other, it is not compulsory for them to marry. Nobody can compelled to these two persons to marry only because they had sexual relationship.

The informant lodged a complaint against accused No.1 whom she claimed to have married in January 2021. The accused No.2 was the father-­in-­law of informant and accused No.3 was a family friend of accused No.1. The informant alleged that after her marriage, she resided with accused No.1 and his parents for two months and she was subjected to cruelty so as to meet their unlawful demand.

Accordingly, a FIR was registered against the accused persons for offences punishable U/Ss. 498­A, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of IPC

A month later, the applicant gave a supplementary statement to the IO, claiming that the accused no.1 never married her and he had breached his promise on the pretext of which, she had consented to have sexual intercourse with him. Accordingly, the Police added Sections 376, 377 and 313 of IPC to the FIR.

Apprehending arrest in the backdrop of above allegations, the accused had approached the Court under section 438 CrPC, seeking anticipatory bail.

Findings

The Court found that from April­ 2019 till registration of FIR,   the informant visited several places with the accused No.1 and also resided with him. Even after registration of FIR she resided with the applicant No.1 in various hotels in Thane for some days.

Considering the facts of the case, the Court opined that the accused No.1 had an affair with the informant, they indulged in sexual relationship and for some reason their relation ended into a breakup. Thus, undoubtedly they had consensual sexual relationship with each other, said the Court.

"The informant is major and educated therefore, it is expected that she was fully aware of the consequences of having sexual intercourse with the applicant No.1 before marriage. The informant stated that her consent for sexual intercourse was obtained by fraud. In the event of consent obtained by fraud, the inducement is a necessary ingredient. Thus, there should be some material on record to believe prima facie that the informant was induced by the applicant No.1 to such an extent that she was ready to have sexual intercourse with him. Herein, informant stated that the applicant N.1 made a false promise of marriage and thereby played a fraud upon her to obtain consent for sexual intercourse. The informant was in relationship with the applicant No.1 for a ­considerable period of time. Thus, in such circumstances, promise to marry cannot be said to be an inducement to obtain the consent by fraud", it further remarked.

The Court thus found that if the applicants were arrested their liberty would be curtailed.

Considering the nature and gravity of accusation, character and position of accused in the society and severity of the punishment provided for the aforesaid offence in the event of conviction, the Court was of the view that physical custody of accused persons was not required for the purpose of further investigation of crime. 

Accordingly, the accused applicants were found to be entitled to anticipatory bail.

"However, it is clarified that any observations made herein above shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merit of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this instant application alone", the order added.