Married Woman Cannot Allege Rape on the Pretext of Marriage, Rules Bombay High Court

Single-judge Justice Manish Pitale made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to a man arrested by the Pune police in a rape case.

On Thursday, the Bombay High Court stated that a married woman cannot allege that she was misled into giving consent for sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage [Vishal Nagnath Shinde v. State of Maharashtra].

The observation was made by single-judge Justice Manish Pitale while granting anticipatory bail to a man arrested by Pune police in a rape case.

“In the first place, the informant herself being a married woman, cannot claim that she fell prey to the false promise of marriage given by the applicant. Being a married woman, she was clearly aware that she would not be able to marry the applicant. In any case, even the applicant is a married man and therefore, the theory of false promise of marriage prima facie appears to be misplaced,” the Court said.

The Court was considering the anticipatory bail application submitted by Vishal Nagnath Shinde, who was charged with rape and criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code.

The complainant, a married woman, accused Shinde, who is also married, of developing a friendship with her and promising to marry her. She alleged that he subsequently assaulted her in a lodge.

After the incident, she claimed he threatened to distribute videos of the assault.

Shinde’s lawyer contended that he had fully cooperated with the investigation.

He also expressed doubts regarding the credibility of the woman’s allegations, especially considering their marital status.

The Court was informed that Shinde had adhered to the conditions of interim relief, reported to the police station regularly, and surrendered his mobile phone for examination.

While the State’s counsel argued that he had not fully complied, the Court found no evidence suggesting that he had shared any videos of the woman.

As a result, the Bombay High Court granted him anticipatory bail with specific conditions attached.

“There is nothing to indicate that the applicant till date has circulated any videos of the informant and therefore, sufficient grounds are made out for allowing the present application,” the order noted.