Punjab and Haryana High Court


Punjab & Haryana High Court: While denying for the grant of anticipatory bail for which the instant petition is preferred by the petitioner against the case filed by her fiancée under Section 376 of Penal Code, Vivek Puri, J., held that merely because the parties are engaged and are meeting each other, it does not give any right or liberty to the proposed bridegroom to sexually exploit the fiancée without her consent.


The Roka Ceremony of the petitioner and the complainant was held on 30-01-2022 and the date of marriage was fixed on 06-12-2022. The petitioner, on several occasions, forced the complainant to form a physical relationship with him but she refused to do so. On 18-06-2022, the petitioner took the complainant to Leela Grand Hotel, on the pretext that he was tired and wants to take a rest. The complainant, despite her reluctance, was forced to enter into a physical relationship and the petitioner also made her videos while forcefully doing the act. On 17-07-2022, the mother of the petitioner disclosed to the complainant's family member that the petitioner has been quarreling for the last 2 months that he does not want to marry the victim.


The counsel for the petitioner contended that when the family of the petitioner came to know that the victim was having love affairs with other male friends, they decided to call off the wedding on 02-07-2022. Further, the counsel tried to prove good intention by stating the fact that the bookings of the marriage ceremonies were done by the petitioner. The counsel also contended that both the parties voluntarily visited the hotel, and the physical relationship was developed with consent. Further, the counsel contended that the WhatsApp messages were exchanged which indicate that it was a consensual relationship and therefore, there is no case made under 376 of IPC.

The counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application on the ground that serious allegations of commission of rape have been leveled against the petitioner. Further, it was contended that while indulging in the act, the petitioner also took a video.

Observation & Analysis:

The Court observed that the WhatsApp messages sought to be relied upon by the petitioner are subsequent to the occurrence and could have been exchanged on the score that the matrimonial alliance was existing at that point of time. Hence, there is lack of material to indicate that as on 18.06.2022, the complainant had consented for any such relationship.

The Court also took into account the fact that the mother of the petitioner disclosed that there was reluctance on the part of the petitioner to solemnize marriage even after the point when a physical relationship was developed.

The Court held that the petitioner cannot get any leverage to physically exploit the fiancée against the consent during the period intervening the engagement and the marriage.

[Sagar Kapoor v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-35393-2022 decided on 31-08-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the Petitioner: Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate

Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate

For the Complainant: Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, DAG

Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.