Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.62 seconds)Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 328 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 August, 2019
4.6 That the allegations pertaining to a purported false promise to marry
are wholly untenable and unsustainable in view of the admitted non-
exclusive nature of the relationship between the parties. It is settled law that
to constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC, the promise must be shown
to have been false from inception and made with malafide intent to deceive.
The FIR and statement under Section 164 CrPC, even if taken at face value,
demonstrate that there was a consensual relationship between the Applicant
and the prosecutrix which continued over a period of time.
4.7 Moreover, There is nothing to suggest that the promise was false from
inception, and mere subsequent breach of promise cannot constitute rape.
The prosecutrix is a major, well-educated woman, fully capable of
understanding the consequences of her actions, who willingly maintained
the relationship for several months. Reliance is placed on Pramod
Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608, where the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that consensual physical relations between
adults, absent proof of malafide intent at inception, do not attract Section
376 IPC.
Sanjay Chandra vs Cbi on 23 November, 2011
4.10 That the Applicant is a first-time offender with no prior criminal
antecedents, gainfully employed, and has deep roots in society. He
undertakes to abide by any condition imposed by this Hon'ble Court,
including residing away from the complainant's locality, not contacting
witnesses, and appearing before the Trial Court on every date of hearing.
4.11 That the trial is likely to take considerable time as multiple witnesses
remain to be examined and the Ld. Trial Court is overburdened. Continued
detention would result in indefinite incarceration of an un-convicted person.
Reliance is placed on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [(2012) 1 SCC
40] and Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. [(2018) 3 SCC 22].
4.12 That considering the totality of circumstances including completion of
investigation, filing of chargesheet, consensual nature of the relationship,
absence of malafide intent, prolonged incarceration, lack of necessity for
further custodial interrogation, and the Applicant's willingness to comply
BAIL APPLN. 1794/2025 Page 6 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
1