Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court

Prima Facie, Consensual Relationship - Lack of Evidence for False Promise of Marriage – Bail Granted: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, Anil Nirwan, who was facing charges under Sections 376 (sexual assault) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment, delivered on January 3, 2024, has attracted attention due to its meticulous analysis of the allegations and its emphasis on the absence of evidence supporting the prosecution's claims.

The case revolved around a dating app encounter that escalated into a legal dispute. The complainant met the petitioner on a dating app called "Hinge," and they developed a relationship. However, allegations arose that the petitioner had initiated sexual contact with her on the pretext of marriage and had received a substantial amount of money from her.

In the judgment, Justice Vikas Mahajan highlighted the crucial lack of evidence regarding a false promise of marriage. He pointed out that their interactions on WhatsApp did not contain any promise of marriage from the petitioner, and the complainant could not produce any such evidence. Justice Mahajan stated, "Prima facie, the sexual intercourse appears to be consensual, and there does not seem to be any false promise of marriage or consent obtained on a misconception of any fact."

Furthermore, the judge addressed the allegations of cheating and financial transactions. He emphasized that an essential element of cheating, inducement, was missing from the case. He noted that the complainant had admitted to making voluntary payments to the petitioner, which included an initial loan of Rs. 25,000 for his alleged treatment.

Justice Mahajan also observed that no documentary evidence of fabricated medical papers, as alleged by the prosecution, was found in the petitioner's possession. The judge stated, "It appears from the status report filed by the State that no document related to medical treatment was found."

The petitioner had been in custody since May 13, 2022, and the trial was expected to be protracted, as the prosecution had cited 18 witnesses. Considering these factors and the clean antecedents of the petitioner, the judge concluded that his continued custody was not required. The judge ordered the petitioner's release on bail, subject to certain conditions.

The judgment has garnered attention for its meticulous analysis of the evidence and its reliance on legal principles in granting bail. It underscores the importance of examining the merit of each case individually and upholding the principles of justice.

 Date of Decision: January 03, 2024

ANIL NIRWAN VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI     

 

Latest Legal News