The Delhi High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to an Indian Navy officer accused of raping a woman on the pretext of marriage.
“No doubt, the victim is an educated lady, but is an educated person immune to cheating. The answer would be ‘no’,” noted the Bench headed by Justice Yogesh Khanna while dismissing petition by a Commander in the Navy seeking anticipatory bail in relation to the FIR registered him on the complaint of the prosecutrix.
The prosecutrix had filed the complaint on June 19, 2021 alleging that from December 2019 to January 2020, the petitioner was having physical relations with her on the promise of marriage. On March 28, 2021, when she asked him to marry her, the petitioner refused stating he did it only for fun. She threatened to lodge a complaint against him, upon which he said that he would upload her nude photographs and video recordings on the internet.
On June 15, 2021, she found that the petitioner is married to another woman, who he was engaged to with prior to March 2021. According to the petitioner, he and the complainant were only friends, and that she was obsessed with him and wishes to extract money from him. He denied establishing any physical relations with her. He alleged that around March–April last year, the complainant started insisting for marriage, but he did not echo her sentiment.
Also Read: Delhi High Court issues notice to adoption authority for causing delay in giving child to OCI couple
He further alleged that there has been a considerable delay in filing the FIR as both of them were on talking terms from the date of first alleged incident.
The Bench observed that there was not much delay in lodging the FIR, as the delay is to be counted from the day the complainant found that the petitioner had married elsewhere without informing her and not from December 2019.
“Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same,” noted the Bench.
Also Read: Delhi High Court, district courts to resume physical hearing from August 31, 24
Refusing to accept the averments made by the petitioner, the Bench opined that “the allegation she is doing all this for money rather inflicts more pain to her injury.”
“The facts do show the petitioner and prosecutrix did have such relations to kindle a hope in the prosecutrix that the petitioner shall marry her at all costs……………Can he be allowed to play with her dignity on the pretext he cohabited with her just for fun and later claim she is extorting money from him. Such allegations if not backed with proof are rather insulting,”
added the Bench.
Perusing the order passed by the Trial Court on July 7, 2021, showing that the petitioner is trying to influence the replies from his department and has even destroyed evidence against him, the Bench refused to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court in declining anticipatory bail to the petitioner.