Serious Allegations and Evasion from Investigation Lead Delhi High Court to Reject Anticipatory Bail in Rape Case

107
0
Share:
property interest free Property Worker Bail Treatment Document Medical Work Bail spDispute a Suit v Illegal Duty office Dowry Husband Parole marriage statements Financial Children Pay Property vLife PostClaims Evidence Medical delhi Goods Hindu Marriage Act Life Evidence Service Agreement CashPetitioner POCSO Property violence VIGOURA Eviction evidence BSuicide ail stability Property Advocates Samsung tax EWS Workman Delhi Delhi High Court HALDIRAM Suit Health bailDate of Decision: April 03, 2024 M/S DSS Buildtech Pvt. Ltd vs. Manoj Kayal Chargesheet bankEvidence Tobacco Payments Jail Google family non-appearance-despite-repeated-warnings-persistent-evasion-from-cbi Tribunal's Divorce Education cbi Bail Written written Disciplinary Mobile Affidavit Payment limited rape Divorce violence publication natco parole accident 25 License Cross-Examine family Maintenance public Publication Bail father Bail  specific Habitual bail OBC-NCL deed disciplinary missing property nature ews sarfaesi jail post amendment evidence jurisdiction government Candidates license Training property Cheque maintenance property 304 evidence diploma police tax divorce divorce police negligence contract disability

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, has denied anticipatory bail to an accused in a case registered under Section 376 of the IPC. The case, FIR No. 485/2023, filed at Police Station Amar Colony, involves accusations of rape under the false pretext of marriage.

The Court observed, “Considering the serious allegations In the FIR, and the fact that the accused has still not joined investigation, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out” (Para 9). This strong statement came as the Court scrutinized the accused’s conduct, particularly his non-compliance with the investigation process.

The complainant alleged that she had been In a relationship with the accused since 2018, under the impression of a future marriage. However, upon becoming pregnant and seeking marriage, the accused reportedly procrastinated and later refused, leading to the registration of the FIR.

Interestingly, the accused had married the complainant after the rejection of his previous bail applications. However, the Court questioned the genuineness of this marriage, stating, “The factum of marriage and the real reason for marriage is still to be ascertained by the police/investigating agency” (Para 9).

The defense argued that the relationship was consensual and that any misunderstanding between the parties had been resolved. Nonetheless, the Court found these claims insufficient to overlook the grave nature of the allegations and the accused’s evasion from the investigation process.

Justice Sharma’s judgment emphasizes the need for the accused to partake in the investigation, especially in cases involving serious charges like rape. The denial of bail was based on the non-joining of the investigation by the accused and the recent, questionable marriage, which the Court deemed insufficient grounds for bail considering the severity of the allegations.

Date of Decision: 30.01.2024

KUSHAL KUDESIA VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Download Judgment

Share: