The Delhi High Court has dismissed a bail plea by a rape accused, saying that merely because the parties were engaged did not mean that the accused could have sexually assaulted, beaten, or threatened the victim.
According to the Delhi High Court, simply because the parties were engaged does not mean that the accused could have sexually assaulted, beaten, or threatened the victim.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a bail plea by a rape accused, saying that merely because the parties were engaged did not mean that the accused could have sexually assaulted, beaten, or threatened the victim.
The court noted that there were serious allegations of forcible abortion and the prosecutrix being sexually assaulted and raped on several occasions by the petitioner accused on the false pretext of marriage and opined that it was not a fit case for grant of bail.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the petitioner's contention that since the parties were engaged, there was no false promise of marriage and said, the "argument has no force, since the mere act of being engaged did not mean that the accused could have sexually assaulted, beaten or threatened the victim" and the sexual relation on the first occasion was, according to the victim, on the "pretext that they were soon to be married".
In response to the petitioner's claim that there were no documents on record to show a forceful abortion, the court said that "a woman who was yet unmarried may not have kept the evidence of same for reasons to save her honour".
"Considering the seriousness of the offence, the nature of allegations and the fact that the charges have not been framed yet and trial is yet to commence, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the present bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC on behalf of the petitioner stands dismissed," the court said in a recent order.
In the present case, the prosecutrix alleged that besides forcibly establishing a physical relationship and giving her pills to abort her
The petitioner and his family members then refused to solemnize the marriage, leading to the filing of the present complaint in July.
The petitioner argued that the FIR against him was triggered by his refusal to marry the prosecutrix and in an earlier complaint to the police, which was subsequently withdrawn, there were no allegations about sexual assaults or rape.