New Delhi, Feb 19 A Delhi court has granted regular bail to a retired Navy officer accused of raping a woman on the false promise of marriage, observing that the “grounds of arrest” furnished to him did not meet the requirements laid down by the Supreme Court.
Additional Sessions Judge Virender Kumar Kharta granted bail to the former Navy officer, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount.
The accused was charged under Section 376(2)(n) (commiting rape repeatedly on the same woman) of the IPC.
The court noted that while the investigating officer provided a written document titled “grounds of arrest” (to the accused), the contents were like “reasons for arrest” and not the specific grounds mandated by law.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, the judge said there was a “significant difference” between the two expressions.
Quoting an apex court ruling, the judge said, “It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’.
"The ‘reasons for arrest’ as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters… (Reasons for arrest) would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime, whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be required to contain all such details in the hand of the investigating officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused…
“…The ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’, which are general in nature.”
The court said that in the present case, “the IO has not explained all the basic facts of the case to the accused, nor has she explained as to what necessitated the arrest of the accused”, and held that the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court had not been complied with.
“This is one ground in favour of the accused for the grant of bail,” the court noted in its order dated February 17.
According to the prosecution, the accused and the complainant were in a relationship for about 10 years, and he had sexual intercourse with her on the false promise of marriage.
The prosecution also relied on WhatsApp chats and screenshots of an online money transfer allegedly made by the woman to the accused shortly before his marriage.
The victim, who was present in court, opposed the bail plea and submitted that the accused “had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions on the false promise of marriage and he has spoiled her life”.
She also alleged that he concealed his marriage from her.
The court, however, observed that while the chats indicated “some kind of relationship” and a transfer of money for the treatment of the accused’s mother, “it is not clear whether the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim only on the pretext of marriage, and the same is a matter of trial”.
On the allegation that the accused tried to pressure the complainant’s brother through a phone call after the registration of the FIR, the court said nothing had been brought on record to show that any threat was extended.
The judge also noted that the investigation was complete, the chargesheet had been filed, and the accused was not required for further custodial interrogation.
Further, the court noted that the chances of the accused contacting or influencing the victim were minimal as they both live in different cities.
“The trial will take a long time, and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the accused in judicial custody,” the court said.
“Keeping in view the long relationship of about 10 years between the accused and the victim, their educational qualification, completion of investigation and non-requirement of further custodial interrogation of the accused, this court is of the considered opinion that the present case is fit for the grant of regular bail to the accused,” it added.
The bail conditions include that the accused shall not contact prosecution witnesses, tamper with evidence, threaten the complainant, or come within her vicinity.
The court also clarified that the state and the victim were at liberty to seek cancellation of bail if any of the conditions were violated.
