“There was no question of promise to marry, especially when factum of marriage of the petitioner as well victim/prosecutrix was in the know of the victim/prosecutrix as well as bail petitioner. Once victim/prosecutrix as well as petitioner had not taken divorce from their respective spouses, they otherwise could not have solemnize marriage. Complaint itself suggests that petitioner had promised to marry subject to taking of divorce by the victim/prosecutrix,” the court said.
The high court also made it clear that its observations were not to be treated as findings on the merits of the criminal case and would remain confined to deciding the bail application.
Marriage promise, relation, assault
According to the prosecution, the 31-year-old woman had married in 2017 but later faced matrimonial issues. She came into contact with the accused, an astrologer, in 2022. She alleged that he persuaded her to seek a divorce after examining her horoscope and telling her that she would not have a good family life with her husband.
Justice Sandeep Sharma said the accused’s guilt was yet to be established and indefinitely jailing him during the trial could not be justified.
She further alleged that the accused told her that his own relationship with his wife was not good and that he would marry her after she obtained a divorce. She alleged that later he got physically intimate with her on the pretext of marriage. The woman also alleged that the accused was involved with several other women and he assaulted her when she objected to it.
The prosecution opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations, the accused’s previous criminal cases and the apprehension that he could threaten the woman. The woman also opposed bail and told the court that she feared for her life.
Story continues below this ad
‘Woman went to him voluntarily’
Taking note that the woman had been meeting the accused since 2022 and that, during this period, she had not lodged any complaint against him, the court said an FIR was registered for the first time on June 22 this year.
It also noted that she had gone to the accused herself to show him her horoscope, and concluded, after considering her statements, that she had voluntarily joined his company without external pressure. The court said it was not persuaded, at the bail stage, to believe that the accused had taken undue advantage of the woman’s circumstances or had sexually assaulted her against her wishes.
The judge said both parties were aware of their existing marriages and neither had divorced their spouse. The complaint itself, the court observed, suggested that the alleged promise to marry was conditional upon the woman obtaining a divorce.
On the face of it, there was no question of a promise to marry and the alleged offence was not made out, it held.
Story continues below this ad
Caste remark allegation left for trial court
The prosecution also alleged that the accused had made casteist remarks while injuring the woman. To this, the high court said that there was no such allegation in her initial statement to the police. According to the order, this allegation appeared for the first time in her later statement recorded during the investigation.
The court said the allegation would have to be considered by the trial court taking into account the evidence collected by the prosecution.
The prosecution also relied on the accused’s criminal antecedents, saying that more than 23 cases had been registered against him. Examining the details, the court said most of the cases were registered under the Excise Act and the accused had already been acquitted in 21 of the 23 cases. The investigating officer, however, stated that nine criminal cases were pending against him.
The court said the accused’s guilt in the present case was yet to be established and indefinitely jailing him during the trial period could not be justified. It said stringent bail conditions could be imposed to prevent him from fleeing.
Story continues below this ad
“This court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that prima facie no case muchless under Section 69 (sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita is made out against the petitioner,” it said.
The high court granted bail to the accused on a personal bond of Rs 2 lakh with two local sureties of the same amount. The accused was directed to remain available for questioning, regularly attend the trial, not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation, and not threaten or induce anyone in connection with the case. He was also barred from leaving the country without the court’s permission.
Justice Sandeep Sharma said the accused’s guilt was yet to be established and indefinitely jailing him during the trial could not be justified.