A Criminal Petition was filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Facts of the Case
The prosecutrix in the present case has employed the accused for the past two years. She alleged that accused had developed a sexual relationship with her, on the false promise of marriage. She claimed, on the night of the alleged incident, the accused got into her car and went to her office with her, where he raped her.
Under Section 376, 420, 506 of IPC and Section 66(B) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the petitioner was booked. The accused moved to High Court seeking advance bail, under Section 438 of CrPC.
Arguments before the Court
The state counsel submitted that the charges against the accused are severe. He also contended that granting an advance bail to such accused, “is unsafe to the society”. The state counsel asserts that there is enough material to relate to the petitioner.
The Court observed that, “The version of the complainant that she had been to Indraprastha Hotel for dinner and that the petitioner having consumed drinks came and sat in the car, even if is assumed to be true, there is no explanation offered for not alerting the police or the public about the conduct of the petitioner”.
Furthermore, on the consumption of alcohol the Court observed that “Nothing is mentioned by the complainant on why she went to her office at night, i.e., 11.00 p.m.; she has also not objected to consuming drinks with the petitioner and allowing him to stay with her till morning; the explanation offered by the complainant that after the perpetration of the act she was tired and fell asleep, is unbecoming of an Indian woman; that is not the way our women react when they are ravished.”
The Court observed that there was no prima facie case from the side of the State Police. Thus, on the seriousness of the offense, the bail cannot be denied. The Court allowed the petition. The petitioner was entitled to enlarge on bail on certain conditions.
The Court asked the petitioner to execute a personal bond for a sum of rupees One Lakh. He has to appear for the investigations whenever required. He has to mark his attendance every second and fourth Saturday. Moreover, he couldn’t hamper or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. The Court empowered the jurisdictional police and the complainant to seek cancellation of bail, if the petitioner commits any offense or fails to adhere to the conditions above.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.