Case title:
Sunny Alias Ravi Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi
Date of Order:
29.04.2024
Bench:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan
Parties:
Applicant: Sunny Alias Ravi Kumar
Respondent: State of Respondent
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble High Court of New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the High Court’ or ‘the Court’) dealt with a bail application sought by the accused amidst the allegations of forced sexual relations under false promises of marriage. The High Court held that the bail serves to safeguard an accused’s liberty during the pendency of trial and the accused’s prison record and personal responsibilities warrant the grant of bail. The accused was granted bail when the Court found discrepancies in the FIR and the nature of consent of the prosecutrix.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
- Section 439: deals with special powers of the High Court and Court of Session as to matters of Bail.
- Section 164: this provision authorizes the Magistrate to record the statement of a person or his confession, no matter whether he possesses jurisdiction in the case.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
- Section 376
- Section 354D
- Section 506
OVERVIEW:
- It was alleged that the accused used to stalk the prosecutrix and threatened her that he would commit suicide unless she agreed to meet and have regular conversations with him.
- In December 2021, the applicant called the prosecutrix at a friend’s house and forcefully engaged in sexual relations with her and promised to marry her afterward. After that, they met a few more times at a hotel where the accused forced her to have sexual relations with her each time.
- On several occasions, the accused had demanded gifts from the prosecutrix and had received cash amounting to Rs. 1.5 Lakhs, 2 mobile phones, clothes, and 2 silver rings. It was also alleged that the accused used to beat the prosecutrix when she did not fulfill his demands.
- In April 2022, the accused allegedly took the prosecutrix to Haridwar for 3 days where their marriage was solemnized. Due to poor health, the prosecutrix returned to Delhi and learned that the accused was already married and had 2 children.
- The accused called the prosecutrix on 7th March 2023 in an intoxicated state and forced her to have unnatural sexual relations with her. He proceeded to assault her when she refused.
- The prosecutrix filed an FIR against the accused at the Police Station Adarsh Nagar for offenses under Sections 376, 354D, and 506 of IPC. She underwent a medical examination at BJRM Hospital, Delhi and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of CrPC.
- The accused has sought bail under Section 439 of CrPC in the instant hearing.
ISSUES RAISED:
- Whether the consent of the prosecutrix was vitiated under false promises?
- Whether the accused should be granted bail?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:
- The counsel argued that the allegations against the accused/appellant were false and had been made to humiliate and harass him.
- There were multiple discrepancies between the FIR and the statement of the prosecutrix which raised questions regarding its credibility and there was an unexplained delay in filing the FIR.
- The relationship between the parties was consensual and the prosecutrix was already aware of the appellant’s marital status. If sexual activity takes place between two consenting parties, the marital status of the individuals is irrelevant.
- There was not enough evidence against the accused to support the allegations of threats and demands made by the accused.
- It was also submitted that during the instant proceedings, the accused had already served a year’s custody and had a clean record.
- Lastly it was asserted that the accused has familial responsibilities and as there were no risks of flight on the accused’s part, he should be granted bail.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:
- It was submitted by the counsel that the prosecutrix stood by the statements made by her and was ready to testify against the accused.
- f the accused was granted bail, he may try to intimidate and/or influence the prosecutrix, leaving her in a vulnerable state.
- Considering the danger the release of the accused will pose to the prosecutrix, he should not be granted bail.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
- First and foremost, the Court opined that it needed to take into consideration the nature of the crime and the severity of the punishment to assess the gravity of the allegations.
- The Court reiterated that bail is not a determination of guilt, but rather a safeguard to ensure the accused’s right to liberty pending trial.
- It was noted that although the alleged offense took place in December 2021, no complaint was filed until 15 months later.
- The prosecutrix had also failed to provide specific details such as the date or time of the alleged incident, affecting the credibility of the allegations.
- Furthermore, it was taken into account that the prosecutrix was aware of the marital status of the accused but consented to the relationship despite the knowledge, even if it was under pretenses.
- Referred to the judgment in Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of UP to highlight that unwarranted delays could result in the embellishment of the accounts of the incident in question as the FIR loses its spontaneity.
- The Court opined that the validity of the prosecutrix’s consent being vitiated by misconception would be determined during the trial but recognized the discrepancies between the FIR and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 of CrPC.
- There was insufficient evidence to corroborate the prosecutrix’s allegations against the accused.
- Additionally, the Court also took note of the significant period of time the parties spent as consenting adults to their relationship, indicating their level of commitment. The prosecutrix’s actions could be considered a display of her consent and awareness of the implications.
- The Court highlighted that the primary objective of incarceration is not to punish, but to ensure their appearance in trial. Bail is simply a means for the accused to safeguard their rights while upholding the integrity of the legal process.
- The Court refrained from adjudicating on the nature of the relationship and the concerning consent and held that it should be determined in trial, but based on the accused’s clean record and his familial responsibilities, the Court found it impractical to keep the accused in prison.
- The accused was subsequently granted bail.
CONCLUSION:
The High Court granted the accused bail on the condition that he provide a personal bond of Rs. 25000 with 2 sureties of the same amount, subject to approval by the Trial Court. He was also warned from influencing, threatening, and tampering with evidence or contacting the complainant or witnesses and certain other conditions. If any new complaints were filed against the accused, his bail could be cancelled. No order was given as to costs.
