New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, while granting bail to a married man, said social norms dictate that sexual relations should ideally take place within the framework of marriage, but if it is consensual between two adults, even Whatever be their marital status, there is nothing wrong in it. A case of raping a woman on the pretext of marriage.
The court said that the victim's decision to continue the relationship even after finding out about the marital status of the accused prima facie points to her consent and no evidence was shown to confirm that she had entered into a forced relationship. created.
“It is clear that the prosecution was meeting the applicant for quite some time before filing the complaint and wanted to continue their relationship even after knowing the fact that the applicant is a married man.
Justice Amit Mahajan, in an order passed on April 29, said, "Although social norms dictate that sexual relations should ideally take place within the framework of marriage, if consensual sexual activity takes place between two adults, their One cannot be held responsible for any wrongdoing, regardless of marital status.,
In the order, the court said that the FIR was filed almost fifty months after the first alleged incident and the actions of the prosecutor did not indicate any pressure.
"It is clear that the prosecutor made a conscious decision after actively applying his mind to what had happened. His actions at this stage do not suggest passive consent under psychological duress, but rather devoid of any misunderstanding , indicates tacit consent,” said the court.
The court further said that though the alleged offense was heinous in nature, I cannot ignore the fact that the purpose of prison is not punitive but to ensure the presence of the accused during the trial.
It said that false allegations of sexual abuse and coercion not only tarnish the reputation of the accused but also undermine the credibility of genuine cases and hence utmost diligence has to be taken while evaluating the prima facie allegations against the accused in each case. Necessary, especially when the issues of consent and intent are controversial.Considering that the applicant was approximately 34 years of age, had a wife and two minor children and was in custody since March 2023, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in jail.
The court said that the victim's decision to continue the relationship even after finding out about the marital status of the accused prima facie points to her consent and no evidence was shown to confirm that she had entered into a forced relationship. created.
“It is clear that the prosecution was meeting the applicant for quite some time before filing the complaint and wanted to continue their relationship even after knowing the fact that the applicant is a married man.
Justice Amit Mahajan, in an order passed on April 29, said, "Although social norms dictate that sexual relations should ideally take place within the framework of marriage, if consensual sexual activity takes place between two adults, their One cannot be held responsible for any wrongdoing, regardless of marital status.,
In the order, the court said that the FIR was filed almost fifty months after the first alleged incident and the actions of the prosecutor did not indicate any pressure.
"It is clear that the prosecutor made a conscious decision after actively applying his mind to what had happened. His actions at this stage do not suggest passive consent under psychological duress, but rather devoid of any misunderstanding , indicates tacit consent,” said the court.
The court further said that though the alleged offense was heinous in nature, I cannot ignore the fact that the purpose of prison is not punitive but to ensure the presence of the accused during the trial.
It said that false allegations of sexual abuse and coercion not only tarnish the reputation of the accused but also undermine the credibility of genuine cases and hence utmost diligence has to be taken while evaluating the prima facie allegations against the accused in each case. Necessary, especially when the issues of consent and intent are controversial.Considering that the applicant was approximately 34 years of age, had a wife and two minor children and was in custody since March 2023, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in jail.
