The Delhi High Court has rejected an Indian Navy Officer’s anticipatory release, accused of raping a lady under the guise of marrying her, citing his alleged attempt to persuade his colleagues to destroy evidence.
The accused’s claim that the woman was extorting money from his inflicts “additional agony to her injuries,” according to the high court.
“Without a doubt, the victim is a well-educated lady, but is she immune to cheating? “The answer is no,” said Justice Yogesh Khanna, denying the man’s anticipatory bail application.
The officer had submitted an anticipatory bail plea in a case brought against him under sections 376, 328, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
“The facts demonstrate that the petitioner [Navy officer] and the prosecutrix [woman] had such relations to kindle a hope in the prosecutrix that the petitioner shall marry her at all costs. It was not irrational for her to believe so, according to the High Court.
Can the accused be permitted to mess with her dignity by claiming he cohabited with her for fun and then accusing her of extorting money from him? Such charges, if not supported by evidence, are offensive, according to the judge.
She claims he had sexual relations with her under the guise of marriage from December 2019 to January 2020.
He travelled to Kolkata for training in January 2020, promising to return in 2-3 months, but he never did. She then travelled to Kannur, Kerala, in March of this year to meet him. He helped her settle down at the Indian Naval Academy’s Guest House in Kerala. When she asked him to marry her, he denied it, claiming it was just for fun.
When she threatened to file a complaint, the accused allegedly told her that he had her naked images and video recordings and that he would upload them on the internet, damaging her career.
The woman found out later, on June 15, 2021, that the officer had married another female in Kerala. She then filed a complaint.
On the other hand, the man claimed that they were “just friends” and that she was fascinated with him and wanted to extort money from him.
The petitioner further claimed that both of them were powerful people, with the prosecutrix being a well-educated woman, and that they had been on speaking terms for the past year and a half since the alleged occurrence. It was claimed in her submission that she never filed any FIR between December 2019 and January 2020, resulting in a significant delay.
According to the Sessions Court ruling denying bail to the petitioner, the electronic records in the form of chats, text messages, and Facebook messages/chats exchanged between them were destroyed. The plea was accordingly denied based on the facts of the case.
