Bombay High Court: Bharati Dangre, J. rejected an anticipatory bail application which was filed apprehending arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(h) and 417 of the Penal Code, 1860.
The complainant who is 22-year-old girl who was briefly acquainted with the applicant along with her friend had visited residential premises of a third friend and the applicant was alleged to have committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She alleged that when she opposed, he expressed that he likes her and, in any case, he was going to marry her. Thereafter, on multiple occasions, the act was repeated. The complainant conceived and was found to be carrying six weeks’ pregnancy, she informed the applicant, but he refused to take up any responsibility and on the other hand, attributed her a bad character and alleged that she was in relationship with some other person.
The Court observed that reading of the complaint revealed that the girl, who is major, developed a liking for the applicant, but her version as far as the sexual relationship was concerned, is that she gave her consent, since the applicant gave a promise of marriage. However, when the girl conceived, the applicant attributed infidelity, but once again committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on the last date as mentioned in the complaint.
The Court stated that merely sharing friendly relationship with a girl does not permit a boy to take her for granted and construe it as her consent to establish physical relationship.
This friendship with the person of fairer sex, does not confer a licence upon a man to force himself upon her, when she specifically refuse copulation. Every woman expects ‘Respect’ in a relationship, be it in the nature of friendship based on mutual affection.
The Court rejected the application and held that accusations faced by the applicant definitely requires a thorough investigation to ascertain the version of the prosecutrix that she was forced to give her consent for sex.
[Ashish Ashok Chakor v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1349, decided on 24-06-2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Dr Samarth S. Karmarkar with Mr. Haresh R. B. (Karmarkar & Associates), Advocate, for the Applicant;
Ms. Anamika Malhotra, A.P.P., Advocate, for the State/Respondent.
*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.