Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
7. The learned counsel for the applicant referred to two judgments of this Court. The first is the judgment dated 22.5.2013 of Kailash Gambhir, J in Bail Appln.311/2013 (Rohit Chauhan Vs. State NCT of Delhi). That was also a case of an FIR registered under sections 376/506/328 of the IPC. There, on the facts of the case, the learned Judge was not prepared to accept that the accused committed rape of the prosecutrix. There were peculiar circumstances in that case, as a reading of the judgment would show. There the prosecutrix was, in the words of the learned Judge, "quite an ultra-modern lady with an open outlook towards life, enjoying alcohol in the company of men which is evident from the photographs placed on record, which have not been denied by the prosecutrix present in court. She does not appear to be such a vulnerable lady that she would not raise her voice on being immensely exploited over such a long period of time. As per the prosecutrix, she had a physical relationship with the petitioner for the last more than 2 ½ years and it is not just a single act of sharing physical intimacy but the same continued for almost a long period of three years. There lies a possibility that the petitioner might have then refused to marry the prosecutrix and this refusal on the part of the petitioner gave a serious jolt to the prosecutrix who then with the help of police, solemnized the marriage with him, in the wee hours of the night when petitioner was in his casual apparels (track suit). It is only on 30.01.2013, that the complainant raised her voice for the first time and made allegations of rape against the petitioner. It is an admitted case that the said marriage ultimately did not consummate as the complainant was never brought to the matrimonial home and the petitioner has already filed a civil suit to seek decree of declaration for declaring the said marriage as null and void."