Delhi court grants bail to man in rape case within 12 days of arrest

Delhi’s Saket Court granted bail to the accused in a rape case within 12 days of his arrest.
While granting bail, Additional Sessions Judge Prashant Sharma noted that the FIR in question was lodged after a significant gap in the alleged coitus.
The Court further observed that the investigation in this case basically has not progressed effectively besides the arrest of the accused and held that further custody of the accused is not justified in such circumstances and granted bail to the accused subject to certain conditions and restrictions.
The prosecutrix alleged that the accused made physical relations multiple times with the complainant for over two years on a false promise to marry her.
The counsels for the accused, Advocates Vijay Aggarwal and RK Gossain submitted that FIR was registered after a considerable and unexplained delay of more than 1 year and seven months, which cast doubts on the prosecution case.
It was argued that it was a mere case of promiscuity and not rape meaning that if a full-grown girl consents to the act of sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage and continues to indulge in such activity is an act of promiscuity and it was submitted that the accused cannot be prosecuted for promiscuity.
Advocate Aggarwal argued that the accused denies physical relations with the prosecutrix and even if the allegations are presumed to be correct, it was a consensual relationship all along. It was further submitted that the fact that the accused got engaged to the prosecutrix shows that the accused was sincere and it was not a false promise at inception.
Advocate Aggarwal further argued that the FIR clearly reflects that the prosecutrix was a modern, literate and working woman who had engaged in a consensual relationship with the accused (though the physical relationship is denied by the accused) and she was never forced into having sexual relations as alleged by her.
Advocate Aggarwal apprised the Court of the messages exchanged between the prosecutrix and the accused on WhatsApp and Text messages right before and after the alleged offence was committed, reflecting that the accused and the prosecutrix were deeply in love and that the prosecutrix willingly and voluntarily participated in the alleged act of physical relationship.
Advocate Aggarwal further submitted that after the engagement of both the parties the mother of the accused passed away and he was informed by the pandit that he should not proceed with the wedding as it will end up in a divorce.
Aggarwal further showed the court portion of the FIR wherein the prosecutrix stated that she knew the accused was superstitious.