Why Delhi Court granted bail to retired Navy officer accused of rape on false promise of marriage

What was the case?

• The accused was arrested in connection with an FIR lodged by a woman alleging that he had sexual relations with her for nearly a decade on the false promise of marriage and later concealed his marriage to another woman.
• Advocate Dhruv Gupta appearing for the accused submitted that no evidence showing the making of such promise was brought on record by the investigating agency.
• He argued that the relationship between the accused and the woman was consensual in nature.
• He also pointed out that at the time of arrest the IO had given the reasons of arrest and she had not given the grounds of arrest to the accused, though, the heading to the document has been given as ‘grounds of arrest’.
• On the other hand, the woman-respondent submitted that the accused had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions on the false promise of marriage.
• Additional public prosecutor for the state asserted that the grounds of arrest were duly communicated to the accused and prayed for dismissal of the bail application on the ground that the accused may influence or threaten the victim.

Court’s observations

• The main contention of counsel for accused is that the reasons of arrest were provided to the accused instead of grounds of arrest and that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard has not been followed.
• In the grounds of arrest given by the IO, the IO has not explained all the basic facts of the case nor what necessitated the arrest of the accused.
• Thus, applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘Prabir Purkayastha v State (NCT of Delhi)’, the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court have not been complied with and this is one ground in favour of accused for grant of bail.
• From the WhatsApp chat, it has also come on record that soon before his marriage, the accused had demanded some money from the victim for the treatment of his mother which was duly transferred by the victim to the account of the accused.
• However, from the WhatsApp chat, it is not clear whether the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim only on the pretext of marriage and the same is a matter of trial.
• Investigation in the present case has already been completed and the charge-sheet has also been filed and hence the accused is not required for the further investigation of the present case. No previous involvement of the accused has been brought on record.
• The trial will take a long time and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the accused in judicial custody.
• In view of law laid down by the Supreme Court and keeping in view the long relationship of about ten years between the accused and the woman, their educational qualification, completion of investigation and non-requirement of further custodial interrogation this case is fit for grant of bail.

What was Supreme Court’s ruling in Prabir Purkayastha v. State?

In this case, the apex court had ruled that the ‘grounds of arrest’ must contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. It was held that the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail.

The court had held that the ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature.