The Supreme Court dismissed a plea of a prosecutrix against the bail granted to the man accused of raping her repeatedly, saying the FIR indicates the two knew each other and continued to have sexual relations and sexual contact repetitively.
The matter came up on Friday before the division bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant, which opined that as per the contents of the FIR lodged at PS Muhana, Jaipur City under Section 376(2) (n) IPC,1860, it was clear that both parties knew each other, and since then they continued to have sexual relations.
Justice Chandrachud observed that there was sexual contact repeatedly among the parties.
Advocate Gautam Jha, appeared for ‘X’ victim, and submitted before the bench that in the FIR, it is alleged that Amarpreet raped ‘X’ more than once and committed rape as defined under section 376(2)(n) IPC.
The bench asked, “You visited the hotel numerous times, apparently and victim was married.”
Also Read: Supreme Court reverses HC order acquitting man from murder case
“That was factually incorrect,” he replied.
The FIR indicates parties knew each other and they continued to have sexual relations and sexual contact repetitively, said the bench.
“At the time of FIR, you obtained decree of divorce. You knew the person (accused) before divorce was granted,” said Justice Surya Kant.
“On the website, the respondent Amarpreet pressurized me to expose myself and recorded nude photographs, the same is mentioned in FIR and chargesheet. I met Amarpreet in Delhi that too under threat of coercion,” submitted the petitioner counsel.
“Further, Amarpreet threatened me that he will expose me in social media, if I do not meet him, in chargesheet, offence under Section 376 of IPC against Amarpreet made out. Even the high court not mentioned any observations while granting bail.”
The Bench said, “If High Court gives reason, it will have impact on merits of case, so that is why the High Court has not accorded the reason while granting bail. Kindly see your conduct also.”
“How will you explain consistent pattern of engaging in sexual relation between parties?” asked Justice Chandrachud.
Gautam Jha for ‘X’ replied that both are neighbours in Delhi and my mother is also getting threatened, my lord. Under Section 376(2)(n), the punishment provided is life without remission.
Also Read: No law to decide how landlord should live in his residential house:Allahabad High Court
On behalf of Amarpreet Singh, the counsel contended before Rajasthan High Court that prosecutrix is a major and a married lady. He has been languishing in jail for a long time.
Amarpreet Singh had preferred bail application under Section 439 CrPC for the offence under Section376(2(n) of IPC,1860. He got arrested under the said offence. The High Court had granted bail on personal bond in the sum of Rs 50,000 with two sureties of Rs 25,000 each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.