"Allegation of rape becomes false once marriage is admitted:" Allahabad High Court grants anticipatory bail to lawyer accused of rape

Allegation of rape becomes false once marriage is admitted, the Allahabad High Court recently observed while granting pre-arrest bail to a lawyer accused of rape. .A single-judge Bench of Justice Siddhart granted anticipatory bail to one, Vidhan Vyas noting that the victim clearly got involved in sexual relationship with the applicant and she also admitted that applicant had married her later in Pashupati Nath temple, Nepal. "The allegation of marriage is admitted ,the allegation of rape against the applicant becomes false once marriage is admitted. In case dispute arose between the parties after marriage it cannot be covered by allegation of rape. The allegations regarding offence under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC are not proved from any documentary evidence," the Court said. .The Court further noted that the allegations tabled against the applicant were not clear and it seemed to be a business dispute between the parties."The informant is older in age as compared to the applicant by about five years. From the allegations in the First Information Report itself the applicant did not committed any physical violation of informant against her will and without her consent. Therefore allegation of rape is not made out against the applicant," the Court held. In view of the same, it granted interim anticipatory bail. The applicant will remain in anticipatory bail till the cognizance is taken by the court on the police report submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court added. .The applicant in this case was charged under Section 376, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.The counsel for the applicant submitted that he was falsely implicated due to business dispute between the informant and the applicant. It was further submitted the informant and he had entered into a physical relationship and they got married in Pashupati Nath Temple, Nepal in August 2019.He further highlighted that the applicant had already been granted interim anticipatory bail by the High Court on January 21, 2021 and no conditions of bail had been "violated". .The informant/ complainant submitted that she was employed in a software company and had engaged the applicant, who is an advocate, for working in her company.The applicant gained her confidence and got some share certificates transferred in his name and became director of her company despite being a lawyer. From February 2018, he started frequenting her house and office and they used to meet outside also. In April 2018, they stayed at Taj Hotel, Chandigarh. The applicant started claiming his personal expenses also from the company. The applicant gained the confidence of informant on the promise of marriage and sexually exploited her but when she asked him to marry her, he avoided her. Later, they went to Mumbai,Nepal and Dubai and in Nepal the applicant accepted her as his wife at Pashupati Nath temple in Nepal. .Taking a dim view of the counter affidavit filed by the informant, the Court said that there was no mention in the swearing clause on what basis the averments were made in different paragraphs. "Which paragraph is based on personal knowledge which are on the basis of record and which are on legal advice are not clear. The swearing clause of counter affidavit is blank. it is defective and not in accordance with law,therefore it can be ignored," the order said. .While granting pre-arrest bail to the applicant, the Court placed reliance on the judgment in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, in which it was held the offence of rape will not be made out if the victim makes a conscious decision to be involved in sexual relationship with accused without pressure or misconception and not involving passive submissions of the victim. The Court also referred to Shiv Shanker v. State of Karnataka, in which case the Supreme Court held that "long physical relationship and living with accused informant as husband and wife and subsequent breach of promise of marry will not make out offence of rape.".[Read order]