In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a 20-year-old individual accused of raping his 35-year-old professor under the false pretense of marriage.
The presiding Judge, Saurabh Banerjee, observed that the prosecutrix, who happened to be the professor, was a mature woman of approximately 35 years of age and had engaged in a relationship with the accused when he was a young man of about 20 years.
It was further noted by the Court that the professor had been previously married and was in the process of a divorce. This information played a pivotal role in the decision to grant pre-arrest bail to the accused student.
The Court’s opinion was explicit in stating that, prima facie, it seemed that the professor’s involvement with the accused was driven by her own choice and desire rather than any form of compulsion or coercion. Furthermore, it was suggested that she had willingly and knowingly pursued a relationship with the accused.
According to the initial information report (FIR), the woman had crossed paths with the accused in February 2022 at the college where he was pursuing his education.
As per her claims, in May 2022, during a work-related trip to Manali, a small wedding ceremony took place at a temple. During this ceremony, the accused promised to have a legally recognized marriage with her at some point in the future.
The professor further asserted that on June 4, 2022, she met the student’s family at his residence, and they had no objections to their impending marriage.
According to the FIR, after discovering her pregnancy in April 2023, the accused and his family exerted pressure on her to undergo an abortion, which was facilitated with the use of a pill.
In June 2023, the woman found herself pregnant once again. On July 1, 2023, the accused took ₹2,50,000 from her and departed. The following day, he scheduled an appointment for the prosecutrix with a gynecologist in Gurgaon on July 4, 2023, which marked their final interaction.
The counsel representing the accused contended that there was never any intention to harm or threaten the prosecutrix. The argument put forth was that the professor had displayed a pattern of attempting to intimidate the accused and his family on multiple occasions. Additionally, it was suggested that the FIR had been filed with the sole purpose of harassing the accused, a 20-year-old student at the same college where the prosecutrix held the position of a professor.
Conversely, the State’s counsel opposed the bail plea, emphasizing the gravity of the alleged offenses.
The Court, while acknowledging the seriousness of rape cases, emphasized the need to consider the specific details, circumstances, background, and context relevant to the case. The Court also took into account the nature of the relationship between the prosecutrix and the accused, who was not of a marital age at the time.
It was concluded that the prosecutrix was a person of above-average intelligence, well aware of the rights of a married woman, and cognizant of the consequences of being involved with an underage individual, a “Student.”
The Court formed a prima facie opinion that the prosecutrix had willingly maintained a relationship with the accused for over a year.
An argument suggesting that the accused was a “proclaimed offender” and, therefore, ineligible for bail was rejected. The Court clarified that he was merely a “proclaimed person” evading arrest under Section 82 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and had not been declared a “Proclaimed Offender” under Section 82 (4) of the CrPC.
The Court asserted that it was not necessary to delve deeply into the evidence at this stage of considering anticipatory bail for the applicant.
Hence, the Court granted anticipatory bail with specific conditions, including the requirement of a personal bond worth ₹1,00,000 and one surety of a similar amount.
The accused was represented by Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey, along with a team of advocates. APP Meenakshi Dahiya appeared on behalf of the State, and Advocates Vikram Singh Jakhar, Mohit Yadav, Varnika Sharma, and Saurabh Sharma represented the prosecutrix.
