Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Leena Dashrath Gavkar, filed a criminal application before the Bombay High Court seeking quashing and setting aside of the bail order dated 16th August 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Bail Application No.4940 of 2023, and for cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No.3 (the accused). The applicant alleged that the accused contacted her through a matrimonial website in 2021, established a physical relationship on the false promise of marriage, and later married another woman. An FIR was lodged on 23rd July 2023 under Sections 376(2)(n), 377, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicant contended that the bail order was mechanical and perverse, relying on Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338 and Anil Nirwan v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3. The respondent argued that the relationship was consensual, the FIR was delayed, and the investigation was complete. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application, holding that the trial court's order was not perverse or mechanical as it had considered the consensual nature and delay. The court noted that cancellation of bail requires strong grounds such as misuse of liberty or perversity, which were not established. The application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Cancellation of Bail - Grounds for Cancellation - The applicant sought cancellation of bail granted to the accused in a case under Sections 376(2)(n), 377, 504 IPC alleging false promise of marriage - The court held that the order granting bail was not perverse or mechanical as the trial court had considered the consensual nature of the relationship and the delay in lodging FIR - Held that cancellation of bail requires strong grounds such as misuse of liberty or perversity, which were not made out (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the bail granted to the accused in a case involving allegations of rape on false promise of marriage should be cancelled on the ground that the order granting bail was mechanical and perverse.
Final Decision
The Criminal Application is dismissed. The impugned order granting bail to Respondent No.3 is upheld.
Law Points
- Cancellation of bail
- grounds for cancellation
- perversity
- mechanical order
- false promise of marriage
- consensual relationship
- Section 376(2)(n) IPC
- Section 377 IPC
- Section 504 IPC
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (02) 163
Criminal Application No.11 of 2024
Mr. Pradyumna Tyagi, Ms. Gayatri Gokhale, Ms. Sneha Jethwa for Applicant; Mr. P.H. Gaikwad, APP for State; Mr. Kuldeep Nikam for Respondent No.3
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused in a case of rape on false promise of marriage.
Remedy Sought
Quashing and setting aside of bail order dated 16th August 2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, and cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No.3.
Filing Reason
The applicant alleged that the accused established physical relationship on false promise of marriage and later married another woman, and that the bail order was mechanical and perverse.
Previous Decisions
Bail was granted to Respondent No.3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on 16th August 2023 in Criminal Bail Application No.4940 of 2023.
Issues
Whether the bail order dated 16th August 2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune is perverse or mechanical?
Whether the applicant has made out grounds for cancellation of bail?
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant: The accused made a false promise of marriage to establish physical relations; the bail order is mechanical and perverse as factual aspects were not considered; relied on Puran v. Rambilas and Anil Nirwan v. State.
Respondent No.3: The relationship was consensual; FIR was lodged after a delay of two years; investigation is complete; no grounds for cancellation of bail.
Ratio Decidendi
Cancellation of bail requires strong grounds such as misuse of liberty or perversity in the order. The trial court's order was not perverse or mechanical as it considered the consensual nature of the relationship and the delay in lodging FIR. Hence, no case for cancellation is made out.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard Mr. Tyagi, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant (through V.C.), Mr. Gaikwad, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State and Mr. Nikam, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3.
The Criminal Application is preferred seeking quashing and setting aside of bail Order dated 16th August 2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Bail Application No.4940 of 2023 ('impugned order') and for cancellation of bail granted to the Respondent No.3.
Procedural History
The applicant filed Criminal Application No.11 of 2024 before the Bombay High Court challenging the bail order dated 16th August 2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Bail Application No.4940 of 2023. The High Court heard the matter on 9th February 2024 and dismissed the application.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 376(2)(n), 377, 504
