The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently granted bail to a man accused of rape under the false promise of marriage, observing that the relationship between the parties appeared long-standing and possibly consensual, with no binding commitments.
Read also: SCBA flags SCAORA encroachment on common bar issues, urges CJI to intervene
While hearing the bail plea under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj analyzed the conversation transcript between the accused and the complainant. He noted:
“There was a long-standing cordial relationship between the prosecutrix and the petitioner and the possibility of the relationship being without any commitment and with no strings attached cannot be entirely ruled out.”
The Court observed that the complainant had expressed emotional obsession towards the accused. The transcript also revealed that she had threatened not to let the accused marry anyone else until she herself got married and settled.
Read also: Supreme Court Refuses to Halt Incineration of Bhopal Gas Tragedy Waste at Pithampur Facility
“The prosecutrix-complainant was aware of the petitioner being in a relationship with another girl for more than 12 years and was contemplating marriage with her. She in fact threatened to expose the petitioner to the said girl as well.”
According to the complaint, both individuals were colleagues, and the accused had allegedly promised marriage, leading to a brief relationship lasting 2–3 months. During this period, they engaged in physical intimacy on multiple occasions. The complainant later became pregnant and claimed she miscarried due to mental stress after the accused refused marriage.
However, the High Court pointed out that:
“The allegations as levelled by the complainant may prima facie give strength and force to the suggestion of the petition that there was an element of free volition and no commitment.”
Read also: Tamil Nadu government moves Supreme Court against HC order on university vice-chancellor law
On the miscarriage claim, the Court stated:
“Even if the allegation of the complainant getting pregnant as a result of relationship with the petitioner is prima facie accepted, it is not disputed that there was no role of the petitioner in termination of the foetus. The pregnancy may at best be a proof of physical intimacy between the parties, which such fact is also not disputed or denied by the petitioner herein.”
The Court clarified that the criminality in such cases hinges not on the sexual relationship alone but on whether such intimacy was secured deceitfully under the promise of marriage. It emphasized that for charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita to hold, intent and deceit must precede the relationship.
“The contemporaneous evidence does lean to some extent in favour of the petitioner.”
Since the investigation was already complete and the chargesheet had been filed, the Court found no reason to keep the accused in custody.
Observing that the case was currently fixed for charge framing and trial might take considerable time, the Court granted bail to the petitioner.
Advocates for Petitioner: Gaurav Nautiyal, Harlove Singh, Gursher Singh Dhillon
Additional Advocate General (Haryana): Rahul Dev
