UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.

Latest Legal News