Delhi HC Denies Bail to Man for Raping Woman on Pretext of Marriage
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of Delhi rejected a 49 -year -old man who was accused of raping a 53 -year -old woman under the pretext of marriage.
Justice Swaran Kanta Sharma observed that there were no materials to suggest that their relations were based on consent, and that although he was divorced, he seems to be misleaded on the basis of wrong guarantees.
July 4 order, “the material witnesses not to be examined yet and Prima Facie’nin the weight of the alleged crime against the record WhatsApp conversations, this court can not find any basis at this stage.” He said.
The prosecutor’s office claimed that the woman had met through a Riders Group, who was the defendant and introduced himself as a DCP in the narcotic department.
He claimed that the man came to the woman’s house and forced sex with him in the promise of wrong marriage.
When he insisted on marriage, the defendants sent him a copy of the divorce petition through WhatsApp, and soon became sure that he would marry his wife and marry him.
The woman claimed that she threatened to make the man went to the police and that he was registered against him to make his special photos open to the public.
The man claimed that the relationship was based on consent and that he could not be stated that he was unaware of the consequences of the actions of a 53 -year -old woman, an adult son.
The Adam claimed that the claim of marriage could not be given any confidence since he knew he was married.
The court noted Prima Facie, which noted the material under the registered material, including WhatsApp chats, and that the man produced a petition of divorce and that she was in the process of divorce incorrectly.
“These conditions show that the consent obtained for the physical relationship is not informed or voluntarily, but is mobilized with misconduct.” He said.
The court also examined Chargeset, who later joined the NSG and introduced as an old navy captain, a part of the team during the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
He also claimed that he was currently working as a narcotics.
The court recorded the statement of a police inspector, which the defendants imitated him as a narcotic.
Order, “Therefore, the complainant is not misleaded or the identity is not taken into consideration, Prima Facie’nin, the prosecution recorded by the above -mentioned material, considering the above -mentioned material is unacceptable at this stage.”
