Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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