Appears to be clear-cut case of consensual sex between parties: HC on rape case filed by married woman against paramour

Read Order: Rahul Sharma v. State of Haryana 

 LE Correspondent

Chandigarh, July 28, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused of rape by a married woman with whom he was in a relationship, saying it appears to be a clear-cut case of consensual sex between the two.

The man was charged with rape and also relevant sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, as the woman is from the Dalit community, at Babain police station in Kurukshetra district after she alleged in her complaint that the petitioner on the pretext of marriage started physical relations with her.

According to the woman, the accused used to come to her house in the absence of her husband and forcefully had a physical relationship with her. Now that her husband came to know about this and turned her out of the house, the accused refused to marry her and threatened her too, she alleged.

After hearing arguments of both sides on the bail plea of the accused, the bench of Justice Sudip Ahluwalia put on record that “a bare perusal of the FIR goes to show that there is no allegation anywhere to the effect that the petitioner at any time had ‘forcibly’ committed any sexual intercourse with the complainant.

“On the other hand, her case was that the petitioner had promised to marry her as she was not getting on well with her own husband, and she, therefore, consented for the physical relationship in the expectation of such perspective marriage.”

The HC further pointed out that the FIR itself is silent about the age of the complainant, but perusal of its vernacular copy goes to show that her year of birth is 1991, which, therefore, means that she had long ago crossed the age of majority.

“To that extent, this would appear to be a clear-cut case of consensual sex between the parties and a marriage in the circumstances would not be feasible, at least till such a time as the first marriage of the complainant could be dissolved in accordance with law, the bench observed.

It further stated that even till now her marriage is reported to be subsisting, the petitioner in such circumstances cannot be treated as being entirely at fault in the matter, even if the allegation levelled against him is taken to be true on its own face value.

“At any rate, the FIR again does not disclose any ingredient of the Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(s)(r)(w)(i) of the SC & ST Act. There is no allegation whatsoever that the petitioner had sought to insult or victimize the complainant purely on account of her belonging to Scheduled Caste, and consequently addition of offences under the SC & ST Act, is surprising to say the least,” the HC held. 

“After completion of investigation, Challan against the petitioner has already been submitted. As such, his further detention for an indefinite period would, therefore, not be called for at this stage. In these circumstances, without commenting any further on the merits of the present case as a whole, but in view of the detention undergone by the petitioner and the fact that the trial is likely to take its own considerable time due to on-going Covid-19 Pandemic, the prayer of the petitioner for regular bail is allowed and he is ordered to be released on regular bail,” stated the bench.

The HC concluded that the Trial Court, while finally deciding the case on merits, shall not be influenced by any of the observations recorded in the order.