Person Not Allowed to Sexually Assault His Fiancé Only Because They are Engaged: Delhi HC Denies Rape Suspect’s Bail

Delhi High Court Law Insider

Khushi Bajpai

Published on: October 6, 2022 at 22:30 IST

A rape suspect’s request for bail was denied by the Delhi High Court, which ruled that just because the parties were together didn’t mean the suspect could have raped, battered, or intimidated the victim.

The court determined that the case was unsuitable for the granting of bail after taking note of the serious claims of forced abortion and the prosecutrix’s repeated sexual abuse and rape at the hands of the petitioner, accused under the false pretense of marriage.

Asserting that there was no false promise of marriage because the parties were engaged, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the petitioner’s argument and stated that the “argument has no force, since the mere act of being engaged did not mean that the accused could have sexually assaulted, beat, or threatened the victim.”

In addition, the victim claimed that the first sexual encounter was based on the “pretext that they were soon to be married.”

The court stated that a lady who was still single may not have retained the proof of said abortion for reasons to preserve her honour in response to the petitioner’s contention that there were no records on file to support a forced abortion.

“This is not a case that justifies the granting of bail due to the seriousness of the offense, the nature of the allegations, the unframed nature of the charges, and the fact that the trial has not yet begun. In light of this, the petitioner’s motion for bail submitted under Section 439 CrPC is denied,”  the court stated in its order.

In this instance, the prosecutrix claimed that in addition to forcing them to have a sexual relationship and providing her medication to end the pregnancy that resulted, the accused allegedly beat her.

The petitioner and his family members then objected to the marriage being solemnized, which prompted the present complaint to be filed in July.

The petitioner contended that the FIR against him was brought about by his unwillingness to wed the prosecutrix and that there were no charges of rape or sexual assault in an earlier police complaint that was later dropped.

Related Post