Shivangi Prakash –
Published on: September 15, 2021 at 10:45 IST
The Delhi High Court refused an Indian Army officer Anticipatory Bail in a Rape Case on Tuesday, stating that the prospect of him repeating the crime or influencing witnesses by abusing his position cannot be ruled out.
“The prosecutrix has stated in the FIR that the petitioner has abused other women also and this aspect has to be investigated by the authorities. The possibility of the petitioner repeating the offence and/or exerting pressure on the prosecutrix or influencing the witnesses by misusing his position as an Officer of the India Air Force cannot be ruled out at this juncture,” Justice Subramonium Prasad stated.
A woman filed an FIR under sections 376, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the male, pretending to be single, had been in communication with her through the website www.Simplymarry.com since March 2017.
It was further claimed that in 2017, the petitioner accused the Prosecutrix by taking her to his home.
After learning that the Petitioner was married with two children, the woman stopped talking to him, and he began calling her from several numbers.
The woman also claimed that the petitioner had taken a loan from her in the amount of Rs. 2,60,000. The woman also claimed that the Petitioner had Harassed and Assaulted her up until 2018.
In October of last year, a Sessions Court denied the Petitioner’s Anticipatory Bail, prompting him to file a case with the High Court. (Bail in Rape cases – How the Story goes on?)
While the petitioner claimed that he had neither abused nor misused the protection he had previously been granted, the prosecution said that he had registered an account on a matrimonial website in 2017 while being married, thereby contesting the plea.
“It is well settled that the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C is an extraordinary power which should be exercised very sparingly. The petitioner is accused of a serious offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The investigation is still going on and has not been completed. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner,” the Court observed while denying Anticipatory Bail.